Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN

INDIA

The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSE-HOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:

I have received your Address praying that the Government of India (Family Pensions Funds) (Amendment) Order, 1957, be made in the form of the Draft laid before your House.

I will comply with your request.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

European Free Trade Area

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the anxiety of the British motor car industry that it will find itself at a disadvantage in the European free market, so long as the burden of Purchase Tax on British motor cars is substantially higher than that of our principal European competitors; and whether he will arrange for this matter to be closely examined in consultation with representatives of the British motor car industry before any final decisions are made with regard to the European Free Trade Area.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. J. Enoch Powell): Purchase Tax is only one among many factors which must be taken into account. My right hon. Friend will, of course, consider carefully any representations the industry may make.

Mr. Nabarro: Has the attention of my hon. Friend been drawn to the important statement made by Sir Leonard Lord, the chairman and joint managing director of Britain's largest motor manufacturers,

the British Motor Corporation? Only forty-eight hours ago that gentleman said:
The Government's policies which affect home sales through credit restrictions, Purchase Tax, Profits Taxes, hire-purchase and other control's must be revised to give us parity of home market conditions with those of our Continental competitors. It must make trade free to meet Free Trade.
Is not this a most important pronouncement, and will my right hon. Friend have urgent regard to the advice of an expert?

Mr. Powell: The statement to which by hon. Friend's attention has been directed does show that Purchase Tax is, as I said, one of many factors that have to be considered.

Motor Car and Commercial Vehicle Chassis (Purchase Tax)

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the present approximate net yield, respectively, in respect of Purchase Tax on motor cars and commercial vehicle chassis.

Mr. Powell: It is £94 million and £12½ million respectively for the twelve months to 30th September, 1957.

Mr. Nabarro: Is my hon. Friend aware that the commercial vehicles' chassis is the only case of the Purchase Tax being made applicable to industrial capital goods? Would it not be just about as sensible to impose the Purchase Tax on a railway locomotive or a railway wagon—or a freighter aircraft—as it is ridiculous to put it on the chassis of a goods vehicle on our roads?
May I have an answer?

Mr. Blackburn: Could the Financial Secretary say how the figure of yield of Purchase Tax on motor cars compares with the loss to the Exchequer as a result of motor cars ranking as a business expenditure?

Mr. Powell: Not without notice.

Mr. Nabarro: May I have an answer to my supplementary now, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: I cannot make a Minister answer if he does not want to.

Mr. Nabarro: A jolly bad show, all the same.

Purchase Tax (Small Manufacturers)

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the present high rate of Purchase Tax imposed on certain manufacturers' produce is a specially difficult problem for small manufacturers who frequently find themselves obliged to finance the payment of the tax for a long period out of their own resources, and that the recent increase in the Bank Rate has materially increased these difficulties; and to what extent his present review of the Purchase Tax will include this matter.

Mr. Powell: No, Sir. Registered traders receive from the Crown credit for a period which, on average, roughly equals that of the credit which they give to their customers.

Mr. Nabarro: Yes, Sir, but is this period to be regarded as inflexible? Is it not the fact that the same period has related to this matter ever since the Purchase Tax was introduced? Having regard to the conditions to which I draw attention in this Question, namely, the high Bank Rate, and other economic and financial conditions—and the Government's policy, in broad principle, is correct, of course—would it not be desirable in the present circumstances to try to help the small manufacturer?

Mr. Powell: I have seen no evidence to suggest that the level of Bank Rate has caused any hardship in this respect.

Dividend Restraint

Mr. Lewis: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that since his last appeal to companies for dividend restraint a number of public companies, particularly those in oil, steel, brewery and property undertakings, have increased dividends; and whether he will issue a further appeal for dividend restraint or take legislative action to enforce dividend restraint.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Nigel Birch): The answer to the first part of the Question is "Yes, Sir", and to the second part "No, Sir".

Mr. Lewis: What action do the Government propose to take in view of the appeals various Ministers are always making to the trade unions? Will

not the Government take some action, in particular to restrain property companies who are doubling rents and, many of them, doubling dividends? Is that not inflationary?

Mr. Birch: The general policy of the Government has frequently been explained, and it is to make profits harder to earn.

Mr. Beswick: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what special steps he has taken to bring to the notice of steel companies his appeal to exercise restraint in the distribution of dividends.

Mr. Birch: My right hon. Friend has taken no special steps for this purpose.

Mr. Beswick: In view of the special steps taken to restrain the National Health Service workers, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it makes a mockery of appeals for wages restraint when these distributions of dividends take place? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what extra effort these people have made over that of the holders of the 3½ per cent. steel stock in the days when it was publicly owned?

Mr. Birch: As I think the hon. Gentleman is aware, the distribution policy of the steel companies has been quite exceptionally conservative. In the last five years 80 per cent. of capital development has been financed out of income.

Mr. Jay: Is it in accordance or not with Government policy that there should have been this rise in steel dividends in the last few months?

Mr. Birch: Government policy is a policy of restraint, not of freezing.

Mr. Jay: Does the Economic Secretary consider that the denationalised steel firms are carrying out Government policy in that respect?

Mr. Birch: I do not think that anything at all improper has been done.

British Petroleum Company (Share Issue)

Mr. Beswick: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why Her Majesty's Government have not exercised their right to take up shares in the recent issue of British Petroleum.

Mr. Birch: It would have been contrary to the intention of the measures my right hon. Friend announced on 19th September for the Exchequer to have injected new money into the market.

Mr. Beswick: I do not know about the business of injecting new money into the market, or about the business of "stagging" new issues, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred last week, both of which remind one of conversations on the grouse moors. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Would the Economic Secretary tell us whether he really thinks this sort of fairground method of raising money really does meet the needs of one of the major industries of this country?

Mr. Birch: I really do not know what the hon. Gentleman refers to as a fairground method of raising money. This money was raised in the way every other issue is raised.

Mr. Cronin: Have not the Government lost between £1 million and £2 million of public money already by not taking up those shares?

Mr. Paget: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) to what extent Her Majesty's Government as majority shareholder was consulted as to the terms of the British Petroleum issue;
(2) to whom the underwriting and sub-underwriting of the British Petroleum issue was allocated; what was the cost of the underwriting; and to what extent, as majority shareholder, Her Majesty's Government was consulted as to the allocation or the cost.

Mr. Birch: Her Majesty's Government were told in advance what form the new issue would take but its terms and the underwriting arrangements were the responsibility of the company.

Mr. Paget: Is not that very regrettable? What are the Government going to do about it? It is fairly clear from the result of the market that they paid over £2 million too much for their money, that £1 million of this wasted money falls on us, and that they also wasted £750,000 by a hand-out to the underwriters? Are they satisfied with that position?

Mr. Nabarro: The issue was twenty times over-subscribed.

Mr. Birch: As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is not always entirely possible to predict in advance the result of issues. The price of this issue, with which we had nothing to do, was fixed a long time in advance. As the hon. Gentleman also knows, in quite a number of recent cases there have been large losses by the underwriters. It was their duty to get the best terms they could, and I have no doubt they did so.

Mr. Paget: It has never been quite as bad as this.

Capital Movements

Mr. Cronin: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now reinforce the control of capital movements to non-sterling countries and introduce controls on capital movements to the sterling area.

Mr. Birch: No, Sir.

Mr. Cronin: Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that, since the Government relaxed controls, the balance of trade surpluses earned by this country have been cancelled out year after year by capital movements, mostly of a fugitive or speculative nature? Has not the time come for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to overcome his party mania and face the situation squarely?

Mr. Birch: I think the experience of hon. and right hon. Members opposite when they were in office showed that the £ cannot be protected simply by controls of that sort. It is the general confidence in the policy of the Government which holds it up. The only thing we have done recently on exchange control has been to close the Kuwait gap. There has been no basic change.

Mr. Cronin: Are there not a Hong Kong gap and a Tangier gap through which large amounts of capital escape?

Mr. Birch: There is a Question later on the Paper about that.

National Savings

Mr. Cronin: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, having regard to the effects of the 7 per cent. Bank Rate, he will take steps to improve forthwith the terms of National Savings.

Mr. Powell: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right


hon. Friend to the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. P. Morris) on 19th November.

Mr. Cronin: Without wishing to tempt the hon. Gentleman to indulge in any kind of leak, may I ask him whether he agrees that the only two alternatives are a serious deterioration in National Savings or a lowering of the Bank Rate?

Mr. Powell: As my right hon. Friend said on that occasion,
I do not think it would help at all if I were to forecast changes in the terms of National Savings…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th November, 1957; Vol. 578, c. 154.]

Cinemas (Entertainments Duty)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer his latest estimate, taking into account reduced attendances at cinemas, of the cost in a full year of the recent reduction in entertainments tax on cinemas and of the total abolition of the tax, respectively.

Mr. Powell: It is not the practice to give estimates of the out-turn of taxes before the end of the financial year.

Mr. Swingler: Will the hon. Gentleman look into this question to see what is happening? Is he aware that already in the first six months of this financial year another 100 cinemas have been closed and that the reduction in Entertainments Duty on cinemas has done nothing to arrest that decline? Will he, therefore, consider very seriously the abolition of that tax in the near future?

Mr. Powell: That is a question for the Budget.

Mr. Rankin: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much has been collected from Entertainments Duty on cinema admissions for this year to the nearest convenient date; and what was the amount for last year over the same period.

Mr. Powell: £26·7 million and £32·1 million in the eleven months ended 30th November in 1957 and 1956 respectively.

Mr. Rankin: If I have followed them correctly, I take it that the figures given represent a fall for this year up to date. Is the Financial Secretary aware that at the same time the admissions to cinemas up to date represent a figure so low that it has not been equalled in the last

20 years? Does he realise that the policy that is being pursued in connection with the cinema industry will rapidly drive the exhibitor out of business and also affect production and make us still more dependent on American film production? Is that what the hon. Gentleman wants to achieve? If not, will he say what he proposes to do about it?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Powell.

Mr. Rankin: rose—

Mr. Speaker: If not the Minister, then Mr. Collins—Question No. 13.

Bank of England

Mr. Swingler: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce legislation to make it a condition of membership of the Court of Governors of the Bank of England that other directorships and appointments must be relinquished.

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether he will take steps to abolish the posts of part-time directors of the Bank of England;
(2) what inquiries have been made into the volume of gilt edge transactions on the occasion of previous increases in the Bank Rate during the period of office of the present Government.

Mr. Birch: I will, with permission, answer Question No. 11 and Questions No. 17 and 27 together.
I would refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd) on 12th December.

Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order. Question No. 27 has nothing to do with the other two Questions. It is a quite different Question. Why is it answered with the others?

Mr. Birch: The Answer is relevant to it, too.

Mr. Shinwell: Further to that point of order. The mere fact that the Economic Secretary thinks that it is relevant is no reason why it should be answered with the other Questions, which are quite distinctive.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps we may hear a supplementary question on the matter.

Mr. Nabarro: On a point of order. Is it in order for right hon. and hon. Members on either side to put down Questions about matters which are sub judice at the present time in the context of the Tribunal which is still continuing its bearings this day?

Mr. Speaker: The Question on the Paper is in order because it does not directly concern the proceedings of the Tribunal, but I can foresee that supplementary questions could invade that sphere. I hope they will not. I am waiting to see what happens.

Mr. Shinwell: Questions Nos. 11 and 17 by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) and me refer to the appointment of part-time directors of the Bank of England, but Question No. 27 refers to a quite different matter. If you will look at the Question, Mr. Speaker, I think you will agree. It has nothing to do with the two previous Questions.

Mr. Speaker: If time permits I will call the right hon. Gentleman to ask a supplementary question.

Mr. Willey: Is it in order for a Minister to answer several Questions together when a Member concerned has not given his consent to his Question being answered with another?

Mr. Speaker: The Answer which the Economic Secretary gave referred to a previous Answer. As I do not recollect it, I cannot say whether it is in order or not.

Mr. Shinwell: On Question No. 17 I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, and the Economic Secretary whether it is in any way sub judice. It is a question for Parliament to decide. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that overwhelming opinion in the country, and Parliamentary opinion, should be tested on whether men should be put in a position where there is a clear conflict between their public duties and their commercial activities? Cannot we have an answer from the Government on that question, which is sub judice only in Parliament itself?

Mr. Birch: The system under which the Bank of England now works was that

brought in by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite when they nationalised the Bank of England. It is the system which they laid down. I think very careful consideration needs to be given before it is altered. There can be no discussion of its merits until we have the Report of the Tribunal.

Mr. Shinwell: On Question No. 17—I am reserving my right to put a supplementary on Question No. 27, which is a different Question—may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will not agree that to have directors associated with the Court of Governors whose firms are engaged regularly in gilt-edged transactions is bound to prove a source of embarrassment to the Bank of England and the firms concerned?

Mr. Birch: This system has continued since 1685, not altogether without success.

Mr. Osborne: Will my right hon. Friend resist suggestions for the introduction of legislation until we have the full Report and do nothing in panic even then?

Mr. Birch: That is what I said.

Mr. Jay: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it was 1694? Will he look at this question seriously, because, whatever its merits, it is obvious that strong opinions are held about it?

Mr. Birch: Of course the question will be considered seriously.

Mr. Shinwell: May I put a supplementary question to the Economic Secretary on Question No. 27? Is he aware that Lord Justice Parker, in opening the proceedings of the Tribunal this morning, himself referred to the desirability of obtaining further information about gilt-edged transactions conducted by certain firms in the City of London previous to 1957, and that he mentioned the year 1951? In view of his Lordship's request for information, is it not desirable that the Government—

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: On a point of order. Have you not previously ruled on this matter, Mr. Speaker, that no reference can be made at Question Time or in debate in the House to the current inquiry procedings at Church House?

Mr. Speaker: I think that previous questions were in order. They could be


considered without reference to the Tribunal, though I think that the right hon. Member for Easington. (Mr. Shinwell), if he reflects, will understand the disadvantage of quoting in the middle of a case the sayings of a judge when the case has not yet been decided. We ought to wait until we have the full Report.

Mr. Shinwell: I put a Question on the Order Paper asking whether the Government would institute an inquiry. His Lordship, in opening the proceedings of the Tribunal this morning—and this is reported in the Press this afternoon—requested information on this precise subject. Therefore, am I not entitled to follow the statement made by his Lordship by asking a supplementary question in order to ascertain the Government's views?

Mr. Speaker: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to ask that, but this is getting very dangerous and I do not know where further questions may lead us. It is a fact that this whole troublesome episode has been sent by the House to the Tribunal to hear and inquire into, and I think that on general principles it is best to avoid anything until the Tribunal has had an opportunity to hear all the evidence and express a final opinion. I think that would be the wisest course.

Mr. Shinwell: May I ask the Economic Secretary, in reply to my original Question No. 27, whether the Government will institute an inquiry into this matter?

Mr. Birch: The Government will supply any figures which the Tribunal thinks are relevant, and they have already supplied them. It seems to me that it really is not up to us or to the right hon. Gentleman to instruct the Tribunal on what is relevant.

Mr. Paget: On a point of order. Are we not in the difficulty that under this rather peculiar procedure the Government are the accused and have the conduct of the proceedings against themselves? Surely, therefore, cannot we as an Opposition require the Government in their capacity as the people who have the conduct of the proceedings to bring certain evidence to the notice of the House?

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that the form of the inquiry or the Resolution passed by the House puts anybody in the position of being accused. The Tribunal has been asked to make an inquiry into the whole matter. Anyhow, if the Government were the accused in this matter, which I do not admit, the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) knows that when a man is accused he is entitled to receive a fair trial, without any intervention by the House which might prejudice it. I hope, therefore, that he will let this matter go.

Mr. Paget: But is that so when the accused are also conducting the prosecution?

Mr. Speaker: It is not a prosecution at all. It is an inquiry.

Income Tax Assessments (Appeals)

Mr. Collins: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the Commissioners of Income Tax have the right to vary assessments within a period of six years from the year of assessment, whereas the taxpayer has only 21 days in which to appeal; and, as this frequently leads to hardship, if he will amend the Regulations so as to give the taxpayer a right of appeal not less favourable than that enjoyed by the Commissioners.

Mr. Powell: There is no relationship between the time limit for appeals and that for assessments.

Mr. Collins: Is the Financial Secretary aware that these assessments often call for a much bigger amount than the amount that is actually due and that they arrive at the busiest time of the year for small concerns? Is he aware that the result is that these small concerns have no time to attend to the matter and that when they appeal it is too late? In common justice, will not the hon. Gentleman extend the time for appeal so that the Government do not claim money to which they are not entitled?

Mr. Powell: All that the taxpayer has to do is to decide within 21 days whether or not he wishes to appeal. He has to do no more, and it is to the interest of the taxpayer and the Government that the point should be settled at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. Collins: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that very often in those 21 days there is no time to attend to the matter? Does he not realise that in the case of the Surtax payer the Special Commissioners inform the taxpayer's adviser of the assessment? Why should there be this discrimination? There is a real difficulty here. Will the hon. Gentleman look at the matter again?

Mr. Powell: There is no discrimination. In many cases the taxpayer also has a right to claim relief or repayment, up to six years.

Statements of Policy (Advance Disclosure)

Mr. Collins: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what criteria guide him in his selection of national newspapers to whom advance disclosure of statements of policy shall be made; and for what reason other national newspapers are excluded from such conferences.

Mr. Powell: My right hon. Friend is guided in the circumstances of each case by his judgment of the national interest.

Mr. Collins: Is the Minister aware that in the recent case the judgment of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a reflection on the integrity of the excluded newspapers? Will the hon. Gentleman say why papers like the Daily Express, the Daily Herald, the Daily Mail and the Mirror were excluded—papers with circulations four times that of the privileged few and read by nine out of ten people in the country? Does he not wish all the people to be informed of the Government's policy, or does he want it to be kept dark? Will he approach his right hon. Friend for an assurance that in future statements of this kind will be made to the Press as a whole and not to the privileged few?

Mr. Powell: I intend to make no reference to a matter which is directly or indirectly sub judice.

Mr. Collins: On a point of order. I submit that this Question has no relationship whatsoever to the matter which is now under consideration, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his statement to which I have referred, made no reference whatever to the Bank Rate. This cannot possibly be sub judice.

Mr. Speaker: It is a matter on which the Minister seems to take a different view.

Output Per Man-Hour

Mr. D. Howell: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish in HANSARD statistics in regard to variations in output per man-hour of different portions of the working population over the past twelve months.

Mr. Birch: No, Sir. There are no official statistics from which variations in output per man-hour over the past twelve months can be calculated.

Mr. Howell: In that event, will the right hon. Gentleman kindly explain to the House how the hon. Lady the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance said a few weeks ago in Birmingham that 50 per cent. of the working class of the country were not pulling their weight? If, as is obvious, there were no statistics on which that statement can be made, should not stupid statements and generalisations of this sort by members of the Government cease?

Mr. Birch: That has absolutely nothing whatever to do with the Question. I really do not think that it is very helpful of the hon. Member.

Government Employees (Private Car Use)

Mr. Page: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he takes to ensure that the payments to Government employees for the use of their private cars on official business, at authorised users' rates, are in fact restricted to journeys for which public transport is not available; whether he is satisfied that the rates of payment are not excessive; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Powell: I would refer my hon. Friend to the relevant rules in Estacode of which I am sending him a copy. The rates of payment are at present under discussion with the Staff Side.

Mr. Page: Does my hon. Friend not think that a rate of 9¼d. a mile is rather high for the use of private cars for Government purposes? Is he aware, for example, that there are about 5,000 authorised users in the Post Office who receive £100 a year each on an average


for the use of their cars? Does he not think that there is the possibility here of discovering means of Government economies in expenditure?

Mr. Powell: As I told my hon. Friend, there matters are under discussion.

Exchange Control

Mr. Jay: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has received with respect to gaps in the exchange control which have arisen since July through Hong Kong and Tangier; and if he will make investigations to see what action is necessary.

Mr. Birch: While no system of exchange control can be completely effective, particularly in view of our position as bankers to the Sterling Area, I have no information that any gaps through Hong Kong and Tangier have arisen since July.

Mr. Jay: As we now know that there were huge losses of gold through the Kuwait gap, which went on for at least two years, will the Economic Secretary look into this matter throughly, in good time, so that if this kind of thing is going on, it can be stopped?

Mr. Birch: As I think the right hon. Gentleman knows, since he was in the Treasury, Hong Kong is a difficult case. It is a big entrepôt area, and so on. We are trying constantly to improve our controls but it is not easy to get watertight ones.

Bank Rate Increase (Tribunal of Inquiry)

Mr. Hamilton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the estimated cost to date of the Tribunal inquiring into the alleged Bank Rate leak.

Mr. Powell: About £5,000.

Mr. Hamilton: Can the Minister inform the House whether any estimate has been made of the ultimate cost, and would he agree with hon. Members on this side of the House that, whatever that might be, it has been very well worth while?

Mr. Shinwell: May I ask the Minister whether, in the event of it being discovered that some members of the Government were at fault, they will be surcharged for this expenditure?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That question is quite hypothetical. Mr. Hamilton.

Retail Prices

Mr. Hamilton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that between October and November the prices of raw wool, raw cotton, raw rubber, lead, imported steel scrap, hides and skins, and zinc fell by 5·2 per cent., 4·4 per cent., 7·9 per cent., 3·2 per cent., 7·6 per cent., 1·5 per cent., and 2·4 per cent. respectively; and whether he will now indicate how far these figures have been reflected in the retail price index.

Mr. Lewis: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he is aware that, since his last appeal to manufacturers to reduce prices, there has been a further fall in import prices and, notwithstanding a 1·7 per cent. fall in the wholesale price of basic materials between October and November, there has been no corresponding reduction in retail prices; and what action he proposes to take to ensure that these falling prices are passed on to the consumer;
(2) if he is aware that, whilst almost all types of imports have fallen in price during the past few months, particularly raw materials, the lower prices have been particularly marked with regard to raw wool, raw cotton, raw rubber, lead, imported steel scrap, hides and skins and zinc; whether he will cause an investigation to be made into the industries which use these raw materials for manufactured goods to ascertain why these lower raw material prices have not been passed on in lower prices for the completed manufactured goods; and whether he will consider a special profits tax in his forthcoming budget on these types of industries and manufacturers.

Mr. Birch: I have nothing to add to my reply of 12th December to the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence). In regard to the last point in Question No. 24 I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget Statement.

Mr. Hamilton: Is the Minister aware that the National Union of Manufacturers has bluntly rejected the appeal of the Chancellor for stabilising prices, much less falling prices, and, indeed, has said


in blunt terms that it is no good appealing to its feeling of patriotism on this matter? If it cannot be appealed to on this ground, is he prepared to take more courageous action?

Mr. Birch: If I remember aright, it said it thought that it was premature. Of course, it takes time for falls in import prices to work their way through the system, and home costs are four or five times as important as import costs in the final price of the article.

Mr. Lewis: If the Minister says it takes time for falls to work through the system, can he say when this is likely to happen, because we have had this Government since 1951, prices have been falling ever since—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—world import prices have been dropping ever since 1951; I am glad to hear that hon. Gentlemen opposite agree—and yet at home we have reached the highest cost of living ever. Can we be assured that at some time, if not in the next few months or years, the Government will implement their promise?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Post-war Credits

Mr. E. Fletcher: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the great hardship that arises in a large number of individual cases of elderly persons having no other means, he will now make general provision for the earlier repayment of Post-war Credits.

Mr. Powell: I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget Statement.

Mr. Fletcher: Will the Minister bear in mind that there is great concern about this? The value of Post-war Credits is diminishing, and an increasing number of elderly people without other means, often in ill health, are suffering great hardship because they cannot get these Post-war Credits repaid?

Mr. Powell: This is a question which it will fall to my right hon. Friend to consider in making his Budget.

Engineering and Science Graduates

Mr. Rankin: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that Great Britain is the only one, among the major industrial nations, where there are

no specialised technological institutions able to award their own degrees, and that this contributes to the shortage in our output of graduate engineers and scientists; and what steps he proposes to take to increase the yearly number of graduates.

Mr. Powell: It is the Government's view that the best results will be got by specially developing the scientific and technological side of certain existing institutions.

Mr. Rankin: Yes, but is not the financial Secretary aware that at present the universities for the most part concentrate on the arts side, and that nearly three-quarters of the graduates in British universities are on that side, and that this injures or affects the status and the stature of technological institutes and puts them on a lower level? Would not he reconsider the matter?

Mr. Powell: In the last two years there has been a 25 per cent. increase in the number of students entering science and technology courses. I should have thought that this was pretty good.

American and Canadian Loan Payments

Mr. Jay: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can now state the Government's intentions on the American and Canadian loan payments due at the end of this month.

Mr. Birch: I would refer the right hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend to the right hon. Member for Blackpool, North (Sir T. Low), on 17th December.

Mr. Jay: As the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been making optimistic speeches about the economic situation in the last week or two, is the Economic Secretary really satisfied that the dollar situation is so bad that we cannot make payments which were made even in 1955 and 1951? If it is as bad as this, should we not be taking some constructive action to improve the position?

Mr. Birch: I think that the right hon. Gentleman misunderstands the position. Under the loan agreements, as re-negotiated, we have the right to have seven bisques, as they are called, when we can postpone the repayment of the loan and


pay the amounts at the end of the period. It seemed, in all the circumstances, that this was a reasonable year to do so.

Patents (Taxation)

Mr. Vane: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the taxation advantages open to inventors in other countries; whether he is satisfied that British industry is not, in consequence, losing the benefit of inventions which have been initiated in this country and later developed overseas; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Powell: My right hon. Friend will gladly study any evidence on this subject which my hon. Friend cares to send him.

Mr. Vane: Is my hon. Friend aware that we are the only civilised country where the sales of patents are subject to tax? Is he also aware that the normal Income Tax regulations bear particularly hardly on a man who has spent some years developing a patent, and then receives his reward for it over a very short time? Does he appreciate that when his right hon. Friend spoke during the last Budget speech of room at the top, it was hoped that some small part of it might be reserved for inventors and patentees, on whom the future of industry in this country so much depends? Will he look into this question in the light of those facts?

Mr. Powell: Certainly, Sir, but as the tax is the same whether the patent is sold in this country or abroad, it can hardly have the effect that the results of British invention are sold overseas.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Fishing Industry (Committee of Inquiry)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the composition and terms of reference of the Committee of Inquiry into the fishing industry which, on 15th July, 1957, he announced it was his intention to set up; and when it will begin its sittings.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. J. B. Godber): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to

my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir) and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) on 25th November. The Committee held its first meeting yesterday.

Mr. Hughes: Will the Minister say whether every phase of the fishing industry will be invited to give evidence before the Committee, so that it may achieve its utmost utility, and will its sittings be held in public?

Mr. Godber: The Committee will ask for the widest possible representations from all the people concerned. Its terms of reference are very wide indeed.

Mr. John Hall: Is it not true that all the relevant facts about the fishing industry are already well known? What new facts does the Committee expect to elicit?

Mr. Godber: I would not accept that all the facts are known. I think that this distinguished Committee should produce a very interesting report.

Charollais Bulls

Mr. H. Fraser: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on the proposed plan of the Milk Marketing Board to import Charollais bulls into this country; and what action he proposes to take.

Mr. Godber: The National Cattle Breeders' Association was invited to comment on this proposal and its views are now being studied. My right hon. Friend is not yet able to say what action will be taken.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: Will the hon. Gentleman make sure that he persuades his right hon. Friend to resist this attempt on the part of hon. Members opposite to restrict the freedom of the farmer?

Sir J. Duncan: Can my hon. Friend say whether there have been any representations on the subject from any of the other breed societies?

Mr. Godber: My right hon. Friend is receiving comments from various people. He has by no means made up his mind yet. I do not think I can add anything more at the moment.

Artificial Insemination (Colour Marking Scheme)

Mr. H. Fraser: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is satisfied with the success of the colour marking scheme pursued with his Department's approval at artificial insemination stations; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Godber: The scheme for providing inseminations free or at a reduced cost from colour marking bulls ended in 1951. It is not now the policy of my Department to advocate the use of colour marking bulls exclusively when suitable bulls of other beef breeds are available.

Mr. Fraser: Would my hon. Friend give even further encouragement to the use of Scottish cattle, especially Shorthorns, and other indigenous breeds such as Lincoln Reds, Dublins, and so forth?

Mr. Godber: I will certainly support Lincoln Reds, representing the county I do, but I would point out to my hon. Friend that the only beef Shorthorn bull standing at an A.I. centre at the moment is at the Ministry's own centre at Reading.

Transactions in Seeds (Committee's Recommendations)

Mr. du Cann: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to what extent Her Majesty's Government propose to implement the recommendations of the Committee on Transactions in Seeds.

Mr. Godber: In consultation with my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Secretary of State for Scotland, my right hon. Friend intends to enter into discussions shortly on the Committee's recommendations with representatives of the interests concerned. An announcement as to the Government's proposals on the Report will be made in due course.

Mr. du Cann: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, but is it possible for him to give any indication as to when a conclusion in this matter might be reached, and whether any action is contemplated thereafter?

Mr. Godber: It is a little early as yet. This is a very long and detailed Report, and it makes no fewer than 107 separate recommendations. It was published only on 21st November. I do not: think that

we can at this stage make any useful statement about the future. Naturally, we are hoping to be able to make some progress in the matter in due course.

Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Meat Imports)

Mr. du Cann: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what arrangements are made by the British Government inspectors in the countries of origin to ensure that meat exported to the United Kingdom is inspected to detect whether it is infected with the virus of foot-and-mouth disease; if he is satisfied that the spread of infection is prevented in the United Kingdom by these arrangements; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Godber: As the reply is rather long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. du Cann: Is my hon. Friend aware of the very substantial concern felt among farmers in this country who believe that foot-and-mouth disease is spread by the import of infected meat? Is it possible for him to arrange for a full scientific inquiry into the matter; or, if he should feel that his Department already has all the scientific information it needs, would he arrange for it to be published in order to allay public anxiety?

Mr. Godber: If my hon. Friend will read the reply when it appears, he will find the matter is set out in some considerable detail. I assure him that we keep the very closest watch on the problem of imported meat, and we receive very considerable co-operation, in particular from the South American countries from which some of the meat comes.

Mr. Willey: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether we have made any progress with the draft convention on foot-and-mouth disease which, I think, was prepared by the French Government?

Mr. Godber: That is somewhat beyond the terms of the Question.

Following is the information:

There is a long-standing control on the import of all potentially dangerous material. Exceptionally, two veterinary officers are stationed in South America. They act in an advisory capacity to the authorities in the four South American countries which are parties to the disease control arrangements for the supply of carcase meat to Great Britain.

These arrangements include:

(a) inspection of the farms of origin of animals and certification that they are free from foot-and-mouth disease;
(b) inspection of animals at markets and certification that animals are free from foot-and-mouth disease before movement to the export slaughterhouses and freezing plants;
(c) inspection of animals at export slaughterhouses and freezing plants before and after slaughter and certification that animals are free from foot-and-mouth disease:
(d) if an animal is found to be infected at the freezing plant, provision for the whole of the troup of animals to be isolated and none of the carcases to be exported to Great Britain;
(e) a requirement that all packing and wrapping materials for carcase meat for export shall be new;
(f) disinfection of places which may have become infected and for all vehicles used to transport livestock for export.

My right hon. Friend is satisfied that these arrangements minimise the risk of infection being carried in carcase meat exports. The Committee which sat in 1952–54 under the chairmanship of Sir Ernest Gowers found that implementation in the Argentine was satisfactory with the exception that owing to the comparatively small number of veterinary officers employed, and the long distances to be travelled, the veterinary inspection at the farm of origin is not always made, but a declaration by the farmer is accepted instead. In any case, there must always be a risk that a carcase exported to this country is of an animal which had picked up infection while travelling to an approved slaughterhouse or had left the farm with the disease in an incubative stage but before it had been detected there.

To prevent the spread of infection in this country by imported meat, it is important that waste food should be boiled before being fed to animals. My right hon. Friend is satisfied that the Animals (Waste Foods) Order, 1957, provides the most effective possible safeguard against the risk of infection from swill. Every effort will continue to be made to reduce to a minimum the risk of carcase meat infected with the virus of foot-and-mouth disease reaching this country from South America or any other country. The problem is under constant study.

Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Act, 1926

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will appoint a committee to give him interim advice on the working of the Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Act, 1926.

Mr. Godber: No, Sir. My right hon. Friend is awaiting the outcome of the examination to which I referred on 2nd December.

Mr. Willey: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we are all fed up with this deadlock and want it broken, and that this is a reasonable suggestion to give him a means of breaking it? We want something done.

Mr. Godber: I have heard the hon. Member criticise committees at some length. I am rather interested to know that he now wants one set up.

Agriculture Act, 1947 (Disciplinary Provisions)

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on what date he received representations from the Farmers and Smallholders Association urging the total repeal of the disciplinary provisions of the Agriculture Act, 1947; and what form the representations took.

Mr. Godber: This Association sent a deputation in November, 1952, to my right hon. Friend's predecessor, urging repeal of the power of dispossession and gave written and oral evidence urging total repeal to the Wilson Committee in 1955. On several occasions over the last few years the Association have protested against the use of the powers in Part II of the Act in individual cases.

Mr. Willey: Does the hon. Member now realise that to rely upon representations made in 1952 is a very flimsy pretext for upsetting the whole industry and that the sooner he pays attention to the responsible views of the industry, both farmers and farmworkers, the better? Will he assure the House that the Government will not proceed with the repeal of Part II?

Mr. Godber: If the hon. Gentleman had paid attention to what I said on the last occasion, he would have realised that I made it abundantly clear that we were not resting our case on those representations. We rest our case on sound, practical reasons which we shall be happy to explain to the House in due course.

Mr. T. Williams: Can the hon. Gentleman give the House any idea how many members of the Association, so-called, had previously been dispossessed for bad husbandry?

Mr. Godber: Not without notice.

Crop Spraying (Alkaline Arsenites)

Mr. Hastings: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cases of poisoning have been notified in those engaged in agricultural spraying with sodium and potassium arsenite in the last five years; and in how many cases spraying with these substances has been regarded as a causative agent in cases of dermatitis and cancer.

Mr. Godber: My right hon. Friend is aware of one case of a person taken ill after being engaged in spraying with alkaline arsenites; and of one occurrence in which arsenical poisoning was diagnosed in seven persons who had picked potatoes very shortly after the haulm had been sprayed with arsenites. He knows of no cases in which spraying with these substances has been regarded as a causative agent of dermatitis or cancer.

Mr. Hastings: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable evidence that those working with arsenic in various forms are more liable to cancer than the normal population? Will he ensure that, as far as is possible, careful records are kept in his Department of those using these sprays in case they suffer similarly from cancer or eczema?

Mr. Godber: I would point out that in agriculture these substances are used in the open air, and, therefore, the same concentrations are not involved. We have laid down very strict rules about the clothing that has to be worn. We will naturally keep a very close watch on the position.

Mr. Hastings: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for how long after the spraying of the haulms of the potato plant with arsenical compounds this element has been detected in the soil; and how far arsenic or its compounds are known to have been absorbed by the potato plant, and deposited in the tuber.

Mr. Godber: My right hon. Friend has no information on the first part of the Question. As regards the last part, potato plants, like all plants, may absorb arsenic in minute quantities and some tubers of potato crops sprayed with arsenical haulm-killers have been found to contain arsenic, nearly always in the peel only, but in quantities below the

limit recommended by the Food Standards Committee.

Mr. Hastings: Does the arsenic which has been found, as the hon. Gentleman agrees, in the peel of the potato arise from the soil, or is it arsenic absorbed by the plant and then re-deposited on the surface of the tuber?

Mr. Godber: There is generally a certain very small amount of arsenic found in ordinary potatoes where no spraying or anything of the sort has taken place. It is a very small quantity, amounting to about 0·1 parts per million. The amount has been slightly higher where spraying has taken place.

Rats (Destruction)

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food his intentions with regard to the present arrangements for rat destruction on farms.

Mr. Godber: The arrangements are under review in consultation with the interests concerned.

Mr. Mallalieu: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the very considerable dismay which there would be in the farming community if this service also were to be withdrawn from the farmers?

Mr. Godber: In some counties it has been given up, but some counties are still carrying on. We are having very close consultations about the matter with all the interests concerned.

Farm Improvement Scheme (Rejected Application)

Sir P. Agnew: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will reconsider the case of the farmer living in South Worcestershire whose application for a grant under the Farm Improvement Scheme has been rejected because he applied for a grant in respect of a building only to be erected on existing foundations instead of a grant for both erection of the building and construction of the foundations.

Mr. Godber: I cannot agree that this application was rejected for the reason suggested in the Question. My right hon. Friend explained the reason fully in a letter which he sent to my hon. Friend on 20th November last, to which I regret I have nothing to add.

Sir P. Agnew: Have we not now arrived at the position where this farmer, if he chooses to submit an application for a grant to cover the cost of new foundations and of the new building to go upon them, will succeed in drawing a larger amount of public money than if the Ministry were to give him permission to erect the building on the existing foundations? Does not this point to the need for a more rational administration of this basically excellent farm improvement scheme?

Mr. Godber: There are two points here. The first is that my noble Friend made it abundantly clear on 30th January last that any work started would not qualify for grant, and that would rule out a case such as this. The other point is that any proposal under the Farm Improvement Scheme has first to be agreed with our technical officers who have to approve it as a correct development. They could not very well do so if the project had been started to such an extent as this one before an application was made.

Sir P. Agnew: Is my hon. Friend aware that the farmer is prepared to submit an application to cover only the cost of a new building on the foundations which he already has?

Mr. Godber: I am aware of the facts of the case. I regret that we are unable to help. We must have very clear-cut rules at the outset of an important scheme of this nature. I am very sorry, but I am afraid that the case falls outside the scheme.

Sir P. Agnew: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the subject on the Adjournment.

Royal Commission on Common Land

Mr. Ede: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give a date by which he expects to receive the Report of the Royal Commission on Common Land.

Mr. Godber: My right hon. Friend understands that the Royal Commission on Common Land hopes to present its Report within about the next six months.

Butter and Cheese

Colonel R. H. Glyn: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) whether, on the basis of figures available to him from his representatives on the Food and Agriculture Organisation and the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation and from the Government's nominees on the Commonwealth Economic Committee, he will give the price per cwt. of first grade Australian butter in Sydney Market, Australia, and the prices of this Australian butter and of first grade United Kingdom butter at the London Provision Exchange at the latest convenient date;
(2) whether, on the basis of figures available to him from his representatives on the Food and Agriculture Organisation and the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation and from the Government's nominees on the Commonwealth Economic Committee, he will give the prices per cwt. of Australian best white Cheddar type cheese in Sydney Market, Australia, and the prices of this Australian cheese and of United Kingdom cheddar cheese at the London Provision Exchange at the latest convenient date.

Mr. Godber: The prices for which my hon. and gallant Friend asks are quoted in the Intelligence Bulletin published by the Commonwealth Economic Committee, to which I would refer him.

Colonel Glyn: While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that the Intelligence Bulletin to which he referred quotes only one grade of Australian butter which is not mentioned in the terms of my Question? Am I to understand him to mean that this Australian butter, on sale in Sydney at 466s. per cwt., is identical with the first-grade Australian butter quoted on the London Provision Exchange at 258s. a cwt.?

Mr. Godber: So far as I could hear that supplementary question, I think I should find myself in agreement with the figures my hon. and gallant Friend quoted.

Primary Commodity Prices

Mr. Moss: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will consider favourably the proposal for buffer stocks, mentioned in the Food


and Agriculture Organisation's Report of June, 1956, as part of a global mechanism to help stabilise primary commodity prices.

Mr. Godber: The report in question analysed the possible uses of buffer stocks for this purpose, but made no definite proposals.

Mr. Moss: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say whether he regards the stabilisation of prices of primary commodities, particularly foodstuffs, as desirable; and what steps is he taking to secure that end?

Mr. Godber: The Government are interested in getting prices stabilised and perfectly willing to discuss that with other countries concerned, but we think that it has to be done on an individual commodity basis.

Food Reserves

Mr. Moss: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will give supply figures, in the categories laid down by the Food and Agriculture Organisation, of the national food reserve of this country, and of the overseas Colonial Territories for which he is spokesman, to the Food and Agriculture Organisation.

Mr. Godber: The only food reserves in the ownership of Her Majesty's Government are strategic reserves about which it is not the practice to give information.

Myxomatosis

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in which districts myxomatosis has proved a killing disease in the past six months; and to what extent the reports received by his Department show that myxomatosis and the use of gas and other measures are preventing an increase in rabbit numbers generally.

Mr. Hayman: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on the incidence of myxomatosis amongst wild rabbits.

Mr. Godber: During the past six months fairly widespread outbreaks of myxomatosis have occurred, and are still active, in Berkshire, Hampshire, Suffolk and Sussex. Isolated outbreaks have also occurred in about thirty other counties.

In most outbreaks the disease has killed a high proportion of the rabbits, but myxomatosis in a weakened strain has now been found in widely scattered areas, and blood tests from samples of rabbits examined suggest that a fairly large proportion of the rabbit population may already be immune to myxomatosis. Reports received by my Ministry indicate generally that the rabbit population is increasing, although where active measures, by gas and otherwise, are being taken, rabbit numbers are being kept down. I should like to emphasise the great importance of occupiers doing everything in their power to destroy rabbits over the next two or three winter months.

Mr. Hurd: May we take it that the new advisory council which was mentioned in another place the other day will give the country regular reports on the progress, or lack of progress, that we are making in dealing with the rabbit pest? Does my hon. Friend agree that we are often lulled into a sense of everything being all right when it is not all right? If we could have these reports they would be invaluable.

Mr. Godber: I should be only too glad to give the utmost publicity to this. I agree that it is important to give the fullest publicity to the question, and I hope that the farming community will continue to do all it can to deal with this pest.

Mr. Hayman: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a noble Lord in another place last week said that there had been three cases of men handling diseased rabbits in Scotland being affected, or supposedly affected, by a mild form of myxomatosis? Will he ask the advisory council to look into this allegation?

Mr. Godber: I am grateful to the hon. Member for bringing that point to my attention. I was not aware of it. I agree that it would be unfortunate if human being were to suffer from it in any way.

Mr. T. Williams: Would it not be correct to say that the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend are doing their level best to discourage county agricultural executive committees from dealing with any pests?

Mr. Godber: Certainly not. I do not accept that for one moment. We are encouraging them to deal with pests of all


kinds—but I do not include political pests among them.

Mr. Vane: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the real responsibility for getting rid of rabbits does not lie with county agricultural executive committees but upon the owners and occupiers of the land concerned? Will he encourage them to get on with the job, because it is their duty?

Mr. Godber: I have done that repeatedly, and I am only too glad to reinforce that request again this afternoon.

FRANCE (IMPORT RESTRICTIONS)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Prime Minister to what extent he was informed by the French Prime Minister, during his recent visit to France, about the French Government's intentions to restrict imports from Great Britain.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): I have been asked to reply.
This subject was not discussed during my right hon. Friend's visit to Paris last month.

Mr. Hughes: Does not the Lord Privy Seal realise that this is a very important matter which should have been discussed? Does he not realise that the French have now cut down imports of Scotch whisky from £500,000 a year to £130,000 a year? How can he expect the Entente Cordiale to continue if the present Government further antagonise public opinion in France? Will not the right hon. Gentleman mention this matter to the Prime Minister?

Mr. Butler: There is no question of the Government antagonising the French Government. The French Government have a perfect right to act as they think best. The Entente exists not only on whisky, but also on wine.

NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANISATION (MEETING)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Prime Minister what consideration was given at the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Conference in Paris to measures of Civil Defence.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I have been asked to reply.
None, Sir.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is not the Lord Privy Seal aware that defence of the civilian population is a very important topic which should not be overlooked? Will the Lord Privy Seal, who is in charge of Civil Defence, mention to the Prime Minister that we might hear a little about how the civilian population is to be defended in a rocket war?

Mr. Butler: The machinery of N.A.T.O. already provides a comprehensive system for the review Of Civil Defence and I can only give the answer to the Question, to the best of my ability, from the information I have received from Paris.

INFORMATION SERVICES

Mr. Swingler: asked the Prime Minister if he will issue a directive to all Departments to take special steps, in the use of their information services, to emphasise acts of peace and good will and to make known Great Britain's constructive contribution to the achievements of world civilisation.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I have been asked to reply.
This is the objective of our information policy as recently defined in Command Paper No. 225. If the hon. Gentleman has any particular suggestion to offer, I know that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will be ready to consider it.

Mr. Swingler: Is the Lord Privy Seal aware that masses of citizens are sick and tired of the obsession with war preparations and military affairs, especially in B.B.C. news bulletins? Will he persuade those responsible to give more publicity to the peaceful and constructive achievements of the British people in spite of the Government they have?

Mr. Butler: Thanks largely to the inspiration of the present Administration, we have many great achievements to our credit. For example, we hold the land, air and water speed records, which is quite an achievement for a country of our size.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS

Mr. Rankin: asked the Prime Minister to what extent this country will continue to receive nuclear weapons from the United States of America, in view of the fact that we are now producing our own.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I have been asked to reply.
I have no statement to make on this matter.

Mr. Rankin: Is the Lord Privy Seal telling us that he is not aware that according to the Press it has been decided to establish nuclear weapon bases in this country, four of them in Scotland? if that is the case, can he say whether the control and custody of the warheads of those missiles have to remain in the hands of the United States Government? Does he not regard that as an affront to this country? Are we now to become a Maginot Line for the defence of the United States of America, even assuming that defence is possible?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir; I do not accept all the points made in the hon. Member's supplementary question. It is valuable to work with the United States of America on the principle of pooling resources and that is precisely what we are doing.

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Prime Minister, in view of his declaration on 16th December of willingness to enter into high level discussions with the Soviet Government, whether he will now prohibit the stationing of United States ballistic missiles in this country, put an end to the carrying of nuclear weapons by British-based aeroplanes on patrol, and accept the Polish and Soviet offer of an agreement to keep Germany and Eastern Europe free of nuclear weapons pending the outcome of these talks.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I have been asked to reply.
When my right hon. Friend said that he would go to any length in discussion, debate or argument which would prove our sincerity, he said also that he would make no concession to our safety. The Answer to the Question is, therefore, "No, Sir."

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Ede.

Mr. Zilliacus: rose—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Gorton (Mr. Zilliacus) was very slow in rising.

Mr. Zilliacus: I apologise for being slow, Mr. Speaker, but I was so thunderstruck by that Answer that I could not rise quickly.
Does the Lord Privy Seal mean to say that the Government will enter negotiations with a determination to make no change in their position and to make no concessions whatsoever but to remain on a strictly war footing?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir. The Government are always elastic, and always ready.

MR. BULGANIN'S LETTER

Mr. Dodds: asked, the Prime Minister if he will make a statement in respect to the latest letter from Marshal Bulganin with suggestions to end the cold war and stop the arms race.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I have been asked to reply.
I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave on my right hon. Friend's behalf to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson) on Tuesday.

Mr. Dodds: Is not that the usual old stuff that makes people more fed up than ever? Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that according to a recent Gallup poll 85 per cent. of the people want the Government to do more than they have done before? Will not he agree that there is much truth in the statement by Mr. Lester Pearson that the West in preparation for war act like giants, but in preparation for peace like retarded pygmies? Will not the Government do much more to call the bluff of the Russians?

Mr. Butler: I do not accept any of those statements. There has been a recent discussion at N.A.T.O. the results of which are not yet apparent to us because the communiqué has not yet been transmitted to us, but it would be very wrong to pursue this by question and answer until we hear what success we have had in the recent discussions.

UNITED NATIONS POLITICAL COMMITTEE (BRITISH DELEGATE'S SPEECH)

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Prime Minister whether the immediate dismissal of the Soviet Prime Minister's offer of negotiations of 11th December by a British delegate at the Political Committee of the United Nations General Assembly on 13th December represented the policy of the Government.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I have been asked to reply.
I presume that the hon. Member refers to the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. G. Longden) in the First Committee. The text of this speech is available to hon. Members in the Library of the House. I do not think that there is any phrase or sentence in this speech—which I fully endorse—which could be taken to imply that a Soviet offer of negotiations has been rejected. Nor has any formal offer of this kind been made by the Soviet Government to Her Majesty's Government, either in Mr. Bulganin's letter of 11th December or otherwise.

Mr. Zilliacus: Is not the Lord Privy Seal aware that the hon. Member to whom the Question refers said that the Soviet Prime Minister's offer was a tale to be told to the marines? Is he seriously suggesting that that represents the attitude of the Government? If so, when it comes to making peace they are not only retarded pygmies but malignant morons.

Mr. Butler: It would be better if the hon. Member and other hon. Members were to read the whole text of the speech, the contents of which I have with me. It runs into three and a half sheets of foolscap and is in the Library of the House. If the hon. Member were to read the speech, he would find that it was drafted in the context of Hungary and asks for Soviet words and deeds to correspond one with the other.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. J. Griffiths: May I ask the Lord Privy Seal whether he will state the business for the first week after the Recess?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): Yes, Sir. The business for the first week after the Christmas Recess will be as follows:

TUESDAY, 21ST JANUARY—Third Reading of the Isle of Man Bill.

Second Reading of the Cayman Islands and Turks and Caicos Islands Bill.

Second Reading of the Overseas Service Bill.

Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.

Third Reading of the New Towns Bill.

Committee stage of the Post Office and Telegraph (Money) Bill.

WEDNESDAY, 22ND JANUARY—Second Reading of the Opencast Coal Bill.

Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.

We hope that there will then be an opportunity to debate the methods by which Private Bills are objected to.

THURSDAY, 23RD JANUARY—Second Reading of the Overseas Resources Development Bill.

Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.

Second Reading of the British Nationality Bill [Lords], which is expected to be received from another place today.

Remaining stages of the Post Office and Telegraph (Money) Bill.

FRIDAY, 24TH JANUARY—Consideration of Private Members' Bills.

Mr. Griffiths: With reference to the Second Reading of the Overseas Service Bill, which is to be dealt with on Tuesday, 21st January, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many hon. Members will want to participate in the debate, as the Bill raises very important issues? May we take it that adequate time will be given to the debate?
Secondly, in the event of the Tribunal which is now sitting at Church House


having presented its Report to Parliament, will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to consider an adjustment of business for the first week after the Recess so that the House may have an opportunity of discussing whatever the Tribunal reports? Does he not agree that it is important to provide that opportunity?

Mr. Butler: I think that we must consider that point when we know the date of publication of the Report—but when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister returns I shall certainly discuss with him the point raised by the deputy Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. W. R. Williams: Last week, I asked the Leader of the House whether he had anything to report in connection with the Motion standing on the Order Paper dealing with unestablished service reckoning for pension in the Civil Service.

[That this House takes note of the recent Report of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service (Command Paper No. 9613) and the observations of the Commission in Chapter XV, paragraph 743, on the subject of the reckoning of unestablished service for superannuation purposes in the Civil Service, to the effect that there is no question of merit or principle outstanding, that it is in fact now common ground that it is right that unestablished service should reckon in full, that Parliament conceded that as regards service after July, 1949, by the Superannuation Act, 1949, that the Royal Commission were of opinion that the

Superannuation Act, 1946, afforded a precedent for retrospection and supported the argument that if a certain treatment is right at one point in time it is also right at others, and that in the view of the Royal Commission the sole consideration was that of cost; and this House is of opinion that all unestablished service prior to July, 1949, of civil servants subsequently appointed to established posts should be reckonable in full for superannuation purposes (instead of one-half only) on the grounds put forward by the Right honourable Gentleman, the Member for Monmouth, in his speech to Standing Committee B on the Superannuation Bill, 1949 (Hansard, 10th May, 1949, Cols. 155–8), and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to take the necessary action.]

The Leader of the House then said that he would deal with the matter and make representations to the Minister concerned. Has the right hon. Gentleman done so? If so, what has been the result?

Mr. Butler: I have certainly done so, but I cannot report any result.

Mr. Ross: When we return, will the Leader of the House undertake to ensure that Government spokesmen who introduce Motions will not leave their places as soon as they have made their speeches, to the disadvantage of the House and without apology and explanation, but will stay and give the House the benefit of their knowledge of the subject?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. I will attempt to make that of personal application.

ADJOURNMENT (CHRISTMAS)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House, at its rising Tomorrow, do adjourn till Tuesday, 21st January.—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

Mr. F. H. Hayman: This is an important Motion, and I am wondering whether the right hon. Gentleman includes with it the usual formula that under Standing Orders the House can be recalled, upon your instructions, Mr. Speaker, at the request of the Government.
I raise this matter because a very serious unemployment situation is developing in the south-west of England—in Devon and Cornwall, and in my own constituency, in particular. In the aircraft industry in Gloucester there are many impending resignations, and industry throughout the country is being affected. In my constituency there are now over 2,000 men unemployed, which represents 8 per cent. of the insured population. This has risen from 5 per cent. on 11th November.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is now pursuing the matter in too much detail. He is entitled to ask whether the House may be recalled, but he cannot hang on to that a statement—which I am very sorry to hear—about the conditions in his own constituency.

Mr. Hayman: I do not wish to delay the House, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman and his other right hon. Friends will take note of what I have said and will bear this very serious situation in mind, because unemployment is rife throughout the country now.

Question put and agreed to.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision with respect to grants to local or police authorities, rating, changing the area, status and functions

of local authorities, and other matters, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

(a) the expenses of the Minister of Housing and Local Government incurred in paying general grants under the said Act,
(b) any increase attributable to the said Act in the sums payable out of moneys provided by Parliament under Part I of the Local Government Act, 1948, or under the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act, 1954, as amended by the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1956,
(c) any expenses of the Minister of Health incurred in the exercise of default powers conferred by the said Act of the present Session,
(d) the expenses of any Minister incurred under the said Act in the payment of compensation for loss of employment or diminution of emoluments,
(e) any administrative expenses incurred under the said Act by any Minister,
(f) the expenses of the Local Government Commissions established under the said Act, and the salaries, fees and allowances of their members, secretaries, officers and servants.

Resolution agreed to.

PARK LANE IMPROVEMENT [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to authorise the London County Council to carry out certain street improvements in the vicinity of Park Lane partly on lands comprised in Hyde Park and the Green Park and partly on other lands, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses of the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation or of the Minister of Works attributable to the provisions of the said Act; and
(b) the payment into the Exchequer of any receipts of the Minister of Works under the said Act.

Resolution agreed to.

PARK LANE IMPROVEMENT BILL

Mr. Norman Cole, Mr. Anthony Greenwood, Mr. Pargiter, and Mr. Vane nominated Members of the Select Committee.—[Mr. Oakshott.]

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Heath.]

HOME SAFETY

3.40 p.m.

Mrs. Jean Mann: I am glad to have been successful in securing such a favourable opportunity in today's series of debates to put in the House the case for home safety. Those who wish to speak during the hour-and-a-hall which have been allotted for the debate are the officials of the Home Safety Group in the House of Commons. This group is absolutely non-party; there are two chairmen and two secretaries, one from each side of the House. We recognise that political questions are not involved in matters of home safety and that death is not a respecter of persons.
At this time of the year the death rate from burns alone is likely to be five times higher—within these four weeks of December—than at any other period of the year, or for the rest of the year. If for no other reason than that, a warning should be given, especially during the Christmas and the New Year season, about accidents caused by carelessness with candles and matches; about dresses catching fire and children being exposed to danger. We shall be glad if these things are taken note of at this time of the year.
There have already been a number of accidents caused by ladies' evening dresses catching fire. Last week I read about a nightdress catching fire and a death resulting. We have flame-proof material now and there is plenty of it available in the shops at moderate prices. There is no reason why ladies should not ask for flame-proof dresses.
This might also be the time of the year when we should review what has been done during the past twelve months, and I regret that I have very little to report. The question of flammability was raised and submitted to the British Standards Institution, which set up a committee, and I have attended conferences at Manchester and elsewhere. I fear that we shall get a report in which we shall be told that nothing can be done about material which is flammable, but that a Kite mark might be given to identify material which is already non-flammable. That seems to me an unsatisfactory conclusion.
The British Standards Institution, in the report already issued, again come back to what I asked the House to do two years ago, to urge that little girls should be dressed in pyjamas rather than in nightdresses. We hear of few, if any, deaths occurring to boys who are dressed in pyjamas. There are 33 deaths of girls in nightdresses to every one of a boy in pyjamas. The British Standards Institution suggests that the Government should go ahead with a campaign to stop the incidence of deaths in the home.
We are well aware that there are 1,000 more deaths every year in the home than on the roads. Addressing the Conference of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department said that, last year, the figure for England and Wales was 7,000. The figure runs at the rate of 1,000 a year more deaths in the home than on the roads.
Last week I said in the House that the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents received £68,000 from the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation for its propaganda against road accidents. The Society also conducts propaganda against accidents in the home, and I think it is responsible for every home safety committee which has been set up in Britain; yet it has never had more than £1,500 for this work.
To make matters worse, it has been intimated to the R.S.P.A. that the grant will cease altogether in 1958. The officials of the Home Safety Group met the hon. and learned Gentleman's predecessor at the Home Office about eighteen months ago and found that he was favourably inclined to the increasing of the grant in respect of home safety work. In addition to the £68,000 from the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation, the Society gets only £10,000. The attitude in this House about the cause of accidents has been just as regardless as in most homes. The attitude generally is, "It cannot happen to me".
There are still 12 million open fires in the United Kingdom and it is no time to comfort ourselves with the thought that we have the Heating Appliances (Fireguards) Act, 1952, which was followed by the regulations under the Children and Young Persons (Amendment) Act, because there is no


enforcement of the regulations. Although it is an offence not to have a fireguard where there are old people and children, such offences are not discovered until there has been a tragedy, and then it is too late. Surely it is not beyond the wit of men and women to devise some method of guarding these 12 million open fires. Already, I am glad to say, the London County Council has shown a fine example, not only by fitting the British Standards Institution fireguard, but by having fireplaces in council houses so constructed that these guards may be fitted very easily. A great many other councils are following that example.
It is in the privately-owned houses where most of these accidents occur. Surely it would help insurance companies if they provided guards at a reduced cost; or, when leases are drawn up—as they are likely to be at this time of the year—a clause could be introduced covering this point as a condition of the letting. I know that we dislike putting conditions in leases, but when council house tenants are obliged to keep their gardens in order, when they are prevented from taking in lodgers or keeping domestic pets, surely it is not too much to ask that this regulation should be introduced into lets of houses to rent. An owner might get a reduction on his insurance premium for complying with some such arrangement.
The other fact that I want to stress is that out of this total of 7,000 accidents per annum, over 5,000 were to persons aged 65 and over. I am again quoting from the hon. and learned Gentleman's address, so that he must not use it against me in his reply. Out of those 5,000, nearly 4,000 were to persons of 75 and over. Then the hon. and learned Gentleman went on to say this:
It may be that one of the causes of the increase in the number of fatal home accidents is the increasing longevity of the population, for which we have to thank medical science.
That is a rather complacent attitude. I think it is so because it is medical science which has made such great strides in keeping our old people alive—really wonderful strides today. I am amazed when I see how doctors can cure an old person of breathlessness, or give someone something to clear up a contusion. How they can keep them going is a marvel, but it is also a reflection on us that so many of

them have died through accidents that could be prevented.
I do not think that we are deserving of the work which the doctors and medical science have been doing for us. I am fortified in my contention by the reply which I have received every time I have asked a Question about the deaths of old people. Curiously enough, it has always been accompanied by a reference to an institution. One reply spoke of "deaths in homes and institutions," which rather surprised me. Why do old people die in institutions from falls? I can understand them tripping over carpets and falling downstairs at home, but why falls in institutions? The reply which I had one year was, "I regret that the information is not available."
Yet, only this week, on 16th December, I received the reply that 761 of these old people met their deaths
…in institutions of all kinds, but I have no detailed information as to the causes or numbers of those occurring in hospitals in the National Health Service."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th December, 1957; Vol. 580, c. 3.]
That is an astonishing statement. It appears as though we do not care. I know that I have the greatest difficulty in keeping on my feet in institutions. I know that nurses must wear special shoes for walking on highly polished floors, and it seems to me that the propensity of my sex to insist on highly-polished floors is just as dangerous as having fires without fireguards.
We require from the Minister more education and more propaganda. I noticed that the London County Council, at its exhibition in London this year, asked that road safety lessons in schools should be co-ordinated with home safety lessons; and why not? Why should the children in school be taught to "Look right, look left, look right again," but, after that, "You can go home and play old Harry"? We find that that is just what they do. For school children, the evening is the worst time of the day for accidents. They go home care-free and regardless of danger, thinking "It can't happen to us." They throw their schoolbags down and little toddlers fall over them. They have no thought whether a toddler is perhaps walking into a fire, and, at this time of the year particularly, young girls ought to be reminded of the danger of reaching up to


a mantelpiece when wearing nightdresses that will readily catch fire.
I do not want to ask for a great deal of money, because I do not think that a great deal of money is necessary. We should combine courses on home safety with instruction on road safety. It may well be that essay competitions and compositions on how to prevent accidents could be arranged and prizes offered. There are thousands of generous people who would quite willingly give prizes to children who could write good essays on how to achieve safety in the home and prevent accidents.
I am reminded that there is a great deal of money lying in hospital endowment funds which can be used for the prevention of disease. I know of one city, Belfast—and my colleague the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mrs. McLaughlin) will hope for an opportunity to speak on this subject—where only £1,000 was taken from a hospital endowment fund because the young surgeon in charge of the hospital was so appalled at the number of preventable accident cases which he was constantly treating. When one thinks of the money spent in hospitals in treating accident cases, surely it is much better that we should try to prevent them. Surgeons could go to the schools. The domiciliary fee is only 4 guineas, and I know that surgeons would willingly forgo their fees if they could only get access to school children to tell them of the terrible cases with which they have to deal.
I notice that in Scotland we are ahead of England. The Secretary of State for Scotland has sent a circular to all local authorities asking them to set up home safety committees, and I wish we could have a similar one issued in England and Wales. I know that, when all is said and done, the human factor emerges. The greatest care has to be taken in every home, and I know that people say, "It will not happen to me." I said it myself at one time. I thought it could not happen to me, but it did, and only a month ago, not far from where I live, a young mother lost four beautiful children. She was not a careless mother, but a very careful one, a mother who was an example to the rest of the neighbourhood, but in a few short minutes she had lost all her four lovely children.
I often think at this period of the year, when I have to rush around to buy about 20 presents and go home and pack them up, what a terrible lot of work it is for me, but when I go to deliver them I am glad that I did not lose my own home. At least, I have three sons left who have married and who themselves have children, and, therefore, I feel very lucky that I am still able to go around with Christmas presents for them.
I hope that the mothers and fathers will be alerted this Christmas and will realise that it can happen to them as it can happen to any of us. I hope, also, that this House will, in the coming year, concentrate upon a big drive to reduce very greatly the number of accidents in the home.

4.1 p.m.

Mrs. Patricia McLaughlin: This is a very fitting time for me to discuss the problems of home safety. Like the hon. Lady the Member for Coat-bridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann), I am grateful for the opportunity of raising the matter on the Adjournment and of supporting what she has said.
Christmas is traditionally a time of good cheer, yet without any doubt there will be a considerable number of unhappy homes by this time next week because people in them will have suffered from quite unnecessary home accidents. There are people who say automatically, "What happens in the homes is a matter for those who run the homes," but that is entirely erroneous. Many of the things which happen in the home, in fact the very architecture of the home, cannot be organised or influenced by those who occupy the home. Today, we are considering what could be done in the future and not only what has been done in the past. There are several points that I wish to elaborate.
The hon. Lady has mentioned that the grants of money which are given by the Government for the publicity campaign against home accidents are pitifully small compared with the sums given for publicity against road accidents, although more people die every year as the result of accidents within the walls of the home than die on the roads. The song, "Home, Sweet Home" has a cynical sound in Britain today, because it is in those homes that people often suffer most.
The varieties and types of accidents are many, and some of them have been mentioned. The most frequent accidents are caused by falls and burning and scalding. We do not know how many people are permanently injured by them. It is pitiful to hear an old woman moaning from severe pain and deep shock after a burning accident suffered in her own home, or to see a small child with scalded fingers or body. Scores of children will never be able fully to carry on a job in life, simply because of a home accident. They will spend many years in and out of hospitals, at great cost to themselves and to the country.
Burns and scalds mostly happen to the younger children; accidents from unguarded fires frequently happen to elderly people. Open fires are not protected in the same way as gas and electric apparatus. Let us face the fact, also, that the design of many kitchens and of utensils such as cookers and saucepans, is sadly, woefully, out of date. In going into many of the houses which have recently been built by local authorities, I am surprised to find that it is still the habit to design the kitchen in such a way that spaces of 18 inches or more are left beside gas cookers which boys and girls can get into and possibly pull down saucepans of boiling fluid upon themselves. This is the cause of many accidents.
The hon. Lady has pointed out that there are still too many unguarded fires, including the old types of electric and gas fires. Publicity and public education are essential. It must become widely known that it is possible to get these unguarded fires satisfactorily shielded. Nevertheless, it is still necessary that all fires, whether guarded or unguarded, should be treated with extreme care. That is a point which the people of this country forget.
During last summer I visited nine European countries and I was surprised at the number of homes in which there was no possibility of a home accident from burning for the simple reason that there was not an obvious, open, heating apparatus. We are behind those countries in central heating. We have more houses than flats, yet we still prefer to have the open hearth or the electric fire than to have hot-water pipes. Therefore, more possibilities exist for accidents in our homes.
A point which is very important is that safety appliances are subject to Purchase Tax. One difficulty in raising these matters on the Adjournment is that Purchase Tax has often been discussed in the past and that we still desire to have the tax removed in the future from many items used in the home.
Many young men and young women are now inventing safer equipment. I have a large number of details about them. It is difficult to get manufacturers to take up any particular article, although it might prevent accidents, because of Purchase Tax. It is not for the manufacturer to add unnecessarily to the cost of his products. I know of a considerable number of safety devices which would help to reduce death and severe injury from accidents in the home. Let me mention a few of them.
There is a very clever invention to prevent children from turning on gas taps. We all know how many accidents, sometimes resulting in coal gas poisoning, arise in that way. There is an excellent invention for preventing flex from trailing from an electric fire. The fire will have only as much flex as it requires because the remainder is automatically drawn into the rear of the fire. There is a safety guard for sliding windows and shutters. It would be wonderful in flats for preventing accidents at windows.
Another very important device, worked from a battery, is intended to prevent old people from being locked in a bathroom and killed. They might not be reachable because the door of the bathroom was locked. Even more wonderful is a new type of light for people who are partly incapable of movement. One central switch is sufficient and by an adjustment they can have light in whatever part of the room they require it.
There are many other inventions with which I will not weary the House. We are held back from marketing many devices which would considerably help to reduce accidents in the home. Manufacturers have not the incentive to take them up because Purchase Tax would make the appliances too expensive. This point should be brought forward very clearly indeed by means of publicity. Local authorities have done much to build houses and supply homes for our people, but I wish they had gone just a little further and ensured that every


home automatically had fireguards for the open fires.
The only major argument that I have heard against this is that if there were accidents while the fireguard was in position the local authority might be held to be responsible and might have to pay compensation. I am informed that this point need not worry the local authorities because the ordinary type of insurance would cover it.
The British Standards Institution has produced a very suitable type of fireguard for the modern home. Fireplaces are now being made to which these fireguards can be attached and it can also be fixed to any existing fireplace quickly by any handyman, and so make the fireplaces safe. What I like best, and what would appeal to the modern housewife, is that they can be made in colours. They can be red, yellow or green and do not have to be the traditional black. They can be left in place throughout the winter and the fires can be cleaned without removing them, and in the summer they can be filled with trailing plants. There is no excuse for anyone saying, therefore, that fireguards are not practicable. The great difficulty is that many people do not know about them; only a few hear about them, and many hear too late.
Fittings in many houses are another subject for worry. More than 5,000 old people suffer in home accidents every year, the bulk of them through falls. In many cases, that is because there is something in the home which is riot satisfactory. A number of cases have been due to a trailing electric flex, the bad shape of a staircase, or bad lighting of steps. The danger from trailing flex continues because we put in electric plugs at foot level. Anyone who has watched an elderly person—not very strong and whose blood is likely to rush to the head easily—stooping and making a major effort to turn a switch on or off when the plug is near the floor, will realise this difficulty.
I know this from personal experience, as at one time I had to arrange for plugs to be put in at waist level. They helped people very much because that avoided the necessity for bending and stretching, which is most difficult for some elderly people. Combined with the modern type of device whereby an electric fire has not a whole bundle of flex trailing behind it, but only a sufficient length, the danger of

elderly people falling or stumbling would be prevented. Architects face a tremendous challenge. If we are to keep people alive longer, obviously we wish to keep them at home and, if we are to keep them at home, those homes must be most suitable for them to stay in. Traditionally, in this country we do not wish people unnecessarily to go to institutions.
Over the generations to come, we look and hope for the possibilities of comfortable and suitable homes for elderly people, to live on their own or in company with others. Those homes should be designed and constructed in such a way as to make it possible for those who are not strong and are unable to do normal things in the normal way to do them without danger to themselves. We can have modern fireguards and fittings for electrical and gas appliances, but we have also to remember that often the elderly person does not see the danger in which he or she is placed. Looking at the long-term problem of keeping people at home and keeping them safe, we see a great future development for all voluntary organisations and home-helps. They can visit, train and encourage people to notice the dangers and difficulties, and in that way help to bring forward problems so that we may have an opportunity of solving them.
Like the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie, I feel that progress in this field has been rather slow this year, but I congratulate the B.S.I. on the report it has produced on the flammability of materials. We have as yet to await a standard to be produced. Perhaps, like most hon. Members, I am unnecessarily impatient, but I fully understand the technical difficulties involved. When that standard is produced, I hope that there will be as much publicity, education and discussion on it as possible, so that it may become something which the average housewife will demand, just as much as now she demands durability, washability and crease-resistance in materials she uses.
There are not so many accidents in the home, in proportion, arising from flammable materials used for curtaining and house-furnishing as there are from materials used for personal wear, and it is on personal wear that I wish to concentrate for a few moments. With the new man-made fibres and other changes


rapidly coming forward in the textile world, it is obvious that many of the old-fashioned materials will go out of favour fairly quickly. Unfortunately, those which are least unlikely to go out of fashion are those which are the most dangerous. We have the old-fashioned idea of the nightgown and also the old-fashioned idea of using flannelette for it. The combination of the two causes more misery and sadness in the home and more danger than anything else. If I had my way, I would completely prohibit the wearing of nightgowns made from flammable materials.
We are considering how to make the average Britisher conscious of the danger of allowing anyone to wear highly flammable materials, and that brings me to the whole question of publicity and education. Over-burdened as the average hard-working teacher is, I wish teachers would give a little more of the energy and time with which they are so generous in so many ways to putting this problem across to children in school classes once or twice a term. If teachers were really conscious of the tremendous good they could do by letting all this be known to young children growing up to be the next generation of home-makers, they could perform a tremendous service.
I know that the curriculum is very full and that already teachers are doing many things which they consider to be outside teaching; but to make a child understand the difference between safety and danger is one of the most wonderful things a teacher could undertake to do. I believe that it would not take very long. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents and many other reputable bodies would be glad to help with information, publicity and anything else they have in their power to help teachers who have in their hands the possibility of performing this valuable task.
The committee of the Belfast Hospital for Sick Children felt justified in taking £1,000 of local endowment for a campaign in order to try to bring before the public the danger of home accidents, particularly those arising from burns and scalds. I have some little experience of the time taken to rehabilitate a person who has suffered a serious accident of that type. It may take months—on an average at least 42 days in hospital—and it may take many years. During

the last period of firework displays I was made aware of the number of people who manufacture and sell fireworks and of the responsible parents who allow them to be used, without supervision in many cases, causing severe accidents.
All these problems raise different points which affect various Departments of the Government. Each, in turn, can bring mitigation of the problem of home accidents. There is no one particular answer, but many small answers which, co-ordinated together, would do a great deal to minimise a very black spot in the life of the nation. I hope that our discussion this afternoon will draw attention, at this time of Christmas, to the need for great care and that those responsible will feel that every small thing which can be done will be worth the doing, even if it prevents only one accident.
If, today, we can go away feeling that we have at least made clear that Parliament accepts responsibility for publicity on this matter, that the necessity for publicity is recognised and that, in future, we shall not be sparing of our time, energy and money to see that everyone in the country is conscious of the problem facing us; if we are determined to see that something serious and far-reaching shall be done to prevent the continuance of this very serious and dangerous aspect of our national life, the debate will have been worth while.

4.20 p.m.

Mr. H. A. Marquand: Like other members of the all-party Home Safety Group, I am glad that we have been given the opportunity to talk for a short time about this subject. As my hon. Friend the Member for Coat-bridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) has reminded us, this is a season of the year in which we ought particularly to be drawing attention to the need for safety at home. It is the season in which the scattered members of the family come home and in which we invite other people to our homes. We, in turn, visit the homes of friends.
In short, it is the season in which great bustle and activity goes on in the home and when, by the very nature of our climate, we need to have all kinds of fires and sources of danger about us. It is a very sad thought indeed that for many homes, if present trends continue, it will


be a very sad season because of accidents in the home. It is, therefore, all the more important that we should talk about it this afternoon.
We formed this small all-party group in the House of Commons a year or more ago because many of us became aware, possibly for the first time—certainly, it was the first time for me—of the alarmingly heavy incidence of accidents in the home, particularly compared with the incidence of accidents on the road, about which we all knew and about which no citizen can very well be ignorant. The danger of death or severe accident on the road has been continually drummed in our ears for a very long time. It is surprising that more people are killed in the home every year by avoidable accidents than on the roads. As in the case of accidents on the roads, it is the children and old people who are the chief victims. Therefore, we formed this group to try to bring about a more vigorous approach to what was being done about the problem.
A great deal can be done only in the homes. It must be done in private because the accidents occur in the home. It cannot be done in public, as with road safety, where the accidents take place in public and where the police can be quickly involved. The police cannot do very much, except through information, about accidents which occur in the home and where the police are not wanted. Though that is so, and these are affairs mainly for private action by careful parents, or those who have old people living with them, to see that all the apparatus provided is not such as to cause accident and that precautions are taken wherever possible, none the less it remains true that unless people are constantly reminded of these dangers and constantly informed about what wise precautions to take the accidents will continue.
The duty of Members of Parliament and the Government is to ensure that the necessary information and education is provided. The provision of information and education is well recognised as a duty of present day government. Of course, the prevention of disease has long been recognised as a function of government. It is a very short step to take from saying that it is the duty of the State to do all it can to prevent disease to saying that it is the duty of the State

to do all it can to prevent disablement or possibly death as the result of accidents. We therefore feel that it is the responsibility of government and, therefore, a matter which Members of Parliament can and should collectively take up to ensure that all possible measures are taken for informing and helping the public, even in their own homes, to prevent accidents.
There are three Government Departments in particular which bear a special responsibility. There is a fourth Department if one includes the Ministry of Education. The Ministry of Education has no direct responsibility, but we must, in passing, pay tribute to the work of teachers, who are increasingly devoting attention to teaching the younger children in schools some of the things that can be done to prevent accidents and encouraging them to take the action in their homes. Their responsibility is not so prominent or so major a responsibility as that of the Board of Trade, the Ministry of Health and the Home Office.
I am very glad to see that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health is here as well as the Joint Under-Secretaries for the Home Department, one of whom, as we know, has not only very special knowledge but experience of the need for home safety. We saw the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade for a short time. I am not complaining about his absence, but I hope that whichever of the Ministers replies to the debate he will have something to say about the activities in this sphere of all those three Departments.
In passing, may I say how much the old people and children are indebted to both hon. Ladies who have spoken this afternoon, my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie and the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mrs. McLaughlin). They are indefatigable in this matter. They provide themselves and us with a constant stream of information. They do not weary of well-doing in explaining these matters at public conferences and in using every possible avenue of publicity to make them known.
As I say, the Board of Trade has a responsibility in this matter because it has now been found that one of the major causes of very serious accident—the accident caused by burning—arises from wearing inflammable clothing. We know


that the British Standards Institution has been doing what it can to promote knowledge among the public of what clothing is flammable and what is less flammable and to promote among manufacturers agreement upon a standard of flammability so that that can be published and made known. I feel disappointed, without being able accurately to pinpoint the details of my disappointment, with the rate of progress. I have had personal contact with the British Standards Institution and its very energetic director. I know that they want to make progress, but how much progress has been made? Am I right in feeling that progress has been slow? If so, why has it been slow? What obstacles remain to be overcome? How long must we wait before a housewife who goes to a shop to buy a garment can be assured that a particular material passes a flammability test? I hope that we shall get the answer from, at any rate, the junior Minister of the Crown who has been in contact with the Board of Trade on this matter and knows the most up-to-date information.
I suppose that the Ministry of Health must be the Government Department above all others which is conscious of the heavy incidence of these accidents. After all, the victims of all but the most trifling accidents have to go to one branch or another of the National Health Service for treatment of the result of their accident. As the hon. Lady the Joint Under-Secretary of State to the Home Department, who was previously Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, knows very well, as does the new Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, many of these victims of accidents in the home remain in hospital for very long periods—indeed, distressingly long periods.
It takes a very long time to treat the severe burns, especially to children, which can arise from the sudden igniting of these dangerous nightdresses to which my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie referred. These victims remain in hospital for a long time. Through all the devices of modern surgery, modern anaesthetics, and modern plastic surgery, their chances of recovery are better than they were, but their treatment involves a heavy expense to the National Health Service which the Service would gladly avoid if it could.
There is money in this for the Government. A little money spent in educating people on the precautions to take, on what sort of material to buy and what sort of night clothing to buy for their children, would save the Health Service far more money on its hospital and other medical services. This is a factor which the Government should bear in mind when they make up their mind how much money to spend in this respect.
I will come back to that in a moment, but I want to say a few words about education and the necessary constant repetition of what we already know so that we are constantly reminded of it at the right moment. It must be continually dinned into our ears. If, as frequently as we din into their ears the statement, that "Beer is best", or "Guinness is good for you", we could din into the ears of the British public the statement that little girls ought to wear pyjamas, and many other statements about home safety, we might save many lives. These are things which one ignores oneself. I do not suppose there is an hon. Member in the Chamber who has not at some time burned himself or herself through standing too near to an inadequately guarded fire. We go on doing these things unless we are constantly reminded not to do them.
One of the means constantly of reminding people to keep themselves on the alert is by good neighbours getting together in a local home safety committee. In their own locality they can get in contact with clubs, guilds, societies and all the other organisations, remind them of these things and spread and repeat the knowledge again and again. That can be done through home safety committees.
Some time ago when I asked a Question of the then Minister of Health, he told me that local authorities were undoubtedly empowered under the National Health Service Act to provide grants for local home safety committees. How many of them are receiving such grants? I wonder whether the Joint Under-Secretary of State, who is to reply, can tell us that this afternoon. If he does not know the answer, perhaps his colleague the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health may have means of finding out before the end of the debate. How many are there in England and Wales? We know the answer in respect


of Scotland. The Scottish position is very much better than in England and Wales. How many local committees are receiving grants from the Ministry of Health under the National Health Service Act as part of their work in disease prevention?
The committee of which I have the honour to be one of the joint chairmen is an all-party committee. I do not want to introduce a partisan note into the debate because that would be unfair to my colleagues, but I must, in passing, refer to Government grants to local authorities. I hope that we can be given an assurance that in the new system of paying Government grants the Government will take into account, before the size of the block grants is fixed, the urgent necessity of providing grants for local home safety committees through the authority of the Minister of Health. At present, if a local authority gives a grant of this kind it receives proportionate assistance from the State. I hope that in future, when the authority's block grant is calculated, the Government will bear in mind the necessity for grants of this kind for disease and accident prevention work through the local home safety committee.
Turning to the Home Office, I want to ask the Joint Under-Secretary of State whether, in the collection of information about accidents, it has been possible for the Government to ascertain what proportion of the accidents through burning now arise, first, from the open coal fire and, secondly, from the unguarded electric and gas fires which it is still lawful to use if they were in use before the Heating Appliances (Fireguards) Act was passed. If that information is not available I seriously suggest that steps should be taken to obtain it during the coming year. How far, in particular, are these unguarded fires, which are still lawfully used, the cause of accidents from burning? That information should, if possible, be obtained at the time of the notification of the burning accident.
The responsibility for the working of the Heating Appliances (Fireguards) Act in England and Wales is placed squarely on the shoulders of the Home Secretary. We passed the Act two or three years ago. Does the Joint Under-Secretary of State feel that perhaps the time has come to use new methods of advertising to the public the desirability of guarding their

old fires? This is by no means impossible today.
In the group to which I have referred we made some approaches to the electricity and gas industries about this matter. Are these being followed up? Have contacts been made by the Home Office with the electricity and gas authorities, which are nationalised industries? It should not be impossible for the Home Secretary to get in touch with these nationally owned undertakings and try to inspire them to a vigorous activity in displaying in all their showrooms guards which can be attached to old fires.
Going beyond that, I wonder whether the time may not be approaching when we should contemplate further legislation to try to remove these old and dangerous fires from use altogether. In my view it would not be entirely unreasonable to require people, after the passage of years, to provide themselves with modern and up-to-date fires, but that is only an idea which I throw out and I certainly do not necessarily speak for the whole group in expressing it, because we have never discussed the possibility.
What action is being taken through the local authorities to follow up the suggestions made by the hon. Lady the Member for Belfast, West about the adequate guarding of coal fires? We are satisfied that this can now be done easily. Some progressive local authorities are doing it very well. Is action being taken through the Ministry of Housing and Local Government or in other ways to ensure that, much more widely over the country, in all new houses and, where possible, all local authority houses, where we have some measure of public control, adequate protection for old-fashioned coal fires is being provided?
Finally, what about the Government grant? I have referred to the possibility of the local home safety committees receiving grants from local authorities which under present law would be matched by a proportionate grant from the Government. But grants do not end there. What is required, in addition, and what we have at the moment, is a grant by the Government to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents in respect of its work on home safety. Just as that Society receives a grant in respect of its work on road safety, so it receives a grant in respect of its work on home safety.


The proportion between the two is, however, absurd. The amount spent in this way on home safety is almost negligible in comparison with what is spent on road safety, yet the needs and dangers are greater in the home than on the road. I am not in any way running down what is being done concerning the roads and I do not want it to be reduced, but I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary will assure the House that there is not any intention of terminating the grant.
Just when we have succeeded in arousing greater interest in this movement, just when we are beginning to feel a keener degree of public interest in the whole subject, it would be disastrous to cut off the grant to the one organisation which can hold all the local home safety committees together. I do not think that those local home safety committees would be anything like as good as they are, and certainly they would not be as numerous as they ought to be, were it not for the energetic staff of the Royal Society—only two of them, if I remember aright—who go round the country and keep in touch with these local committees.
The visits by the staff of the Royal Society to the local committees are greatly appreciated and are essential in order to give the committees a sense of mattering and having some importance, a sense that their meetings are worth while and that they ought to be going on with their jobs. It would be a disaster and a disgrace to the country if, at the present time, the Government grant for that purpose were to cease.

4.42 p.m.

Dr. Donald Johnson: As previous speakers have implied, this subject inevitably rings a personal note, particularly at this time of year and with those of us who have families of young children. The saddest deaths of all, particularly when it occurs from accidents such as we have been hearing about, are those involving young children. None of us could listen to the hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann), and, in particular, to her own personal experience, without feeling the very deepest sympathy, though we realise that it happened many years ago.
Accordingly, as I have some qualification in the matter, I propose to deal mainly with the question of accidents in

the home in reference to young children. My qualification is that although I have a comparatively small family of three, nevertheless their ages cover a wide range, from 26 in the case of the eldest to 2½ in the case of the youngest. Thus, except for a comparatively short interval of time I have always had a child in the home and for twenty years or more I have had almost continuous consciousness of the question of accidents to children. Therefore, in approaching this debate, I felt, as joint chairman of the all-party committee, that I might review my arrangements in my own home as the father of a family.
It seemed to me that the simplest way of approaching the subject was to follow the manner of one of the Sunday newspaper quizzes, in which one is asked, "Are you the perfect lover?", with various qualifications listed, marks being awarded for each attainment. Because, for various reasons, I score very low marks indeed, I am led to a great sense of inadequacy in my more official position.
For the purpose of the debate, I am taking the five main points in which my arrangements probably have much in common with those in many other homes. The first question is that of open fires. I regret to say that in our home we have an open fire with a very inadequate guard indeed. To get an adequate guard would necessitate altering the brick fireplace to fit the proper kind of fireguard that we have been hearing about. I was glad to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mrs. McLaughlin) say that more decorative safety fireguards are now beginning to appear, because in a sitting room, which is where one has the children these days—the days of nurseries are over—a fireguard could be completely disfiguring. Even the plainer type of safety fireguard, however, is only just beginning to reappear in our local shops. When discussing the matter with my wife this morning, today was the first time that she was able to tell me that she had even seen the proper kind of safety fireguard appearing in our shops. My marks concerning open fires, therefore, are nil.
Next is the question of electric fires. Here again, I must confess that we are still using the old type of fire. To do anything about it would mean throwing away the existing fires and buying the


type of electric fire which we always mean to buy, but never quite get round to doing. I should almost welcome the kind of legislation, of which the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) was speaking, that would compel me finally to throw away our existing electric fires.
Next, matches. Matches are some-thing that it is very difficult to do any-thing about where young children are concerned. Again, I have to confess that we have had several displays of pyrotechnics in which my young daughter has been concerned, fortunately without ill results.
Fourthly, the question of pyjamas. Here, at least, I score. I have a little girl who never wears anything else at night but pyjamas. I cannot imagine any parents with the obvious knowledge at their disposal clothing small girls in anything else.
Finally, there is the question of poisons. Here our arrangements are slightly rough and ready in putting the only bottle of tablets in the house in the only place to which a child cannot climb, namely, on top of the wardrobe. I am not certain that that is not the best thing to do. Locked cupboards are all very well—we know that they are recommended in the propaganda—but keys are apt to be lost and, moreover, children are apt to find them. They are even apt to open drawers and, if they see a locked cupboard, they want to get into it. I am very doubtful of the efficacy of locked cupboards. At least, I give myself a mark in this direction.
Nevertheless, I am left with a dreadful sense of inadequacy by the fact that in my own home I am setting this shocking example in these important matters. This leads me to speculate. I think that I am typical of a large number of parents. How are we to educate parents, including ourselves, in these matters? Our great trouble is that we put our home together, we get our routine and we are resistant to change. That is one of the big difficulties. We always mean to do these things, but we never quite get round to doing them.
The hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie put forward the idea of school education and educating the elder children, but I have a feeling that that is not quite a sufficiently early stage at which

to start. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West, in thinking of the following generation in education, was rather more on the mark. It is essential to get at the young married couples just at the time when they are starting their homes together, so that they can fix themselves up with safety devices and see that their homes are furnished and equipped as far as possible on safety lines. We cannot, perhaps, start safety education for children right at the altar, but we can start it at ante-natal clinics. It would be an excellent thing if home safety education, particularly in reference to children, could be part of ante-natal clinic training and advice.
In examining children's deaths in the light of the statistics which are supplied, and which I have here, we find that the large majority of those deaths are caused by the five main things that I have mentioned. There is, however, one cause of death, which accounts for a very high number of deaths, about which very little is said and about which it is, perhaps, worth saying something in this debate. Out of a total of 663 fatal home accidents in England and Wales in the age-group of under four, no fewer than 183 deaths are due to suffocation.
Most of these deaths, which could be prevented, are clearly due to having a baby in bed and it being overlaid and suffocated. This is obviously a point upon which young mothers could be educated. A subsidiary cause of suffocation is, of course, the cat lying on the baby's pram. This, again, is a thing which would not occur to a young mother unless she is reminded. One of our own worst causes of anxiety was when my wife and I had a favourite cat as a pet for our little boy, now aged nine, and another baby came along. We were in the quandary whether to get rid of the cat or to take a risk. We kept the cat, but at the cost of very considerable anxiety and almost constant vigilance to ensure that it did not sit on the baby's face. That is a very real risk that is seldom mentioned or pointed out when speaking of these matters.
I want to say a word, as I think I should do, as a medical man, on the question of poison, and of small boys and girls eating tablets in mistake for sweets and losing their lives in this perhaps most poignant way of all. No


fewer than 22 deaths were caused in this way in England and Wales in 1955. This is a very grave question indeed, about which something definite should be done, because we are increasingly getting into the custom of taking our medicaments more by tablets than by bottles of medicine.
People are very careless indeed in the home with tablets. They leave them lying about all over the place. There are vast numbers of tablets being prescribed at present. I think that one of the most interesting exhibits both in the exhibition that we had upstairs in this House, arranged by our committee, and also the similar L.C.C. exhibition at Charing Cross, was one that demonstrated the complete similarity between tablets and children's sweets, so that even experts looking at them could not tell one from the other. Perhaps that is, to some extent, inevitable.
What could be done is to have a special label put on all kinds of poisonous and semi-poisonous tablets when they are dispensed by the chemists. Even very young children could be taught to recognise the colour on the label—it could be a special colour—and it could contain a routine warning to parents not to leave the tablets where children could get hold of them. That could be done at very little expense. It should be done in the case of phenobarbitone tablets, which are dispensed in very large numbers, and even the less dangerous aspirin and phenacetin tablets, and drugs of that kind. I hope that the Minister who replies to the debate will say something about that and whether he feels that he can consider it.
What it all finally boils down to is that in this matter none of us is really doing enough, whether we are parents, Members of Parliament, or local authorities. A splendid example was set earlier in the autumn by the L.C.C. exhibition at Charing Cross, a place where everyone could see it and people were continuously reminded of these dangers. There are, however, very few of these exhibitions. I should be interested to hear how many local authorities are taking action throughout the country; they must be very few. Not nearly enough is being done in this matter. The most that we can do in this House is by reminders and debates of this kind. That is what we

are doing, but it is essentially a matter for a civic lead throughout the country, which is what we are appealing for in this debate.

4.57 p.m.

Mr. A. E. Hunter: I shall not detain the House very long. I want to raise one or two points, one of which I consider to be very important. I should first like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge (Mrs. Mann) on raising this subject today. There have been good speeches on both sides of the House, and one can see that there is a large body of opinion in this House alive to the question of safety in the home.
We live in a modern age. There was danger from the old-fashioned irons people used to heat on open fireplaces. There was danger in people sitting around the old open fireplaces without fire guards. Today, we have moved into the age of modern electrical and gas appliances. Anyone with any knowledge of the electrical industry will know that there has been a big improvement in the design of electrical equipment and appliances. I imagine that since 1945 there has been a big improvement in electric irons and electric fires. As we know, manufacturers are now forced to supply safety guards. There has also been a big improvement in electric washing machines and similar appliances. There has been an advance in the technical knowledge of all these electrical appliances.
At the same time I stress the need for the Home Office, in conjunction with the electrical manufacturers, to take some more action, because the electrical manufacturers have a big responsibility to which I think they are alive, and, as hon. Members know, they have to carry out Home Office requirements and regulations. There should be more cooperation between the Home Office, the electrical industries, and the electricity and gas boards.
Why should there not be a safety week for electrical and gas appliances? We have safety weeks in our road campaigns. Why should not the Home Office give a lead to the nationalised boards and electrical manufacturers to institute safety weeks, giving demonstrations of the proper use of electric washing machines, electric toasters, irons, properly guarded fires, and so on? Such a lead from the


Home Office would be of immense benefit to the country.
The important point which I now wish to raise has not been mentioned by any hon. Member so far. I refer to the inspection of gas installations. This is not a matter of new equipment. Many houses in this country, especially in the large towns, were piped for gas at the turn of the century. In parts of London and some of the large provincial towns many older buildings are divided off and let as a number of bed-sitting rooms, each with one gas fire or gas ring. Many such installations are very old, and I am not satisfied that the gas boards give proper inspection to some old properties as far as the gas pipes are concerned.
Apart from the sad deaths from suicide, over 500 unfortunate people every year die from gas poisoning as a result of leaking pipes. Some gas installations are fifty or sixty years old, even older, and there are occasions when people go to bed and there is a leak in the pipe during the night and they are found gassed in their beds next day. I have been alarmed by case after case which I have read about in the national Press. As I indicated, the number of deaths from this cause in 1955 and 1956 was over 500 in each year.
I raised the matter with the right hon. Gentleman the Paymaster-General during the debate on the Report and Accounts of the gas and electricity boards. Unfortunately, we had no reply that night. I feel that the Home Office has a special responsibility here. Pipes in old houses become rusty and then leak, and there is often no direct landlord, the premises belonging to a big property owning group, perhaps, with the result that one might say there is no direct control and little or no inspection is carried out. The Home Office should make it the responsibility of the gas boards to ensure that at least once every three years an inspection is carried out, particularly in the older types of property. I feel that in making this point I may be able to render some service in again drawing to the attention of the Minister of Power the importance of this matter.
What has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie on the subject of safety generally is of great importance, and she has done very

good service to everyone in raising the matter today.

5.4 p.m.

Sir James Duncan: As a founder member of the Home Safety Group, I am delighted to join in this discussion. I should like to begin by congratulating the hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) on being fortunate enough to have this important subject first on the list this afternoon for an Adjournment debate. Since the hon. Lady, too, is Scottish, she will readily understand why I am interested in the subject also, for all Scottish people loathe waste and like value for money. It has always seemed to me, since I became aware of the size of the problem and the number of home accidents, that this was an appalling and unnecessary waste. I am, therefore, very keen to do everything I can to help the campaign and reduce the number of home accidents.
The Home Safety Group induced the Scottish Office to issue a circular on this subject, and I am wondering whether my hon. and learned Friend at the Home Office could obtain from the Scottish Office some information as to what the result of the circular has been among Scottish local authorities.
In my own county, I have addressed the county branch of the Red Cross Society. I asked the Red Cross people to do what they could, as part of their ordinary voluntary work, to make known the danger of home accidents. I suggested that they should, in co-ordination with the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, see whether they could conduct some of the publicity which my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mrs. McLaughlin) has said is so important. I agree with her in that. Last month, through the Red Cross, a series of six lectures was given to all the local voluntary people in the county, and I believe that those concerned are to be congratulated upon doing that kind of thing.
My suggestion is that every Member of Parliament could very well do similar work in his own constituency. It is not a matter of money. The lectures cost practically nothing; only the travelling expenses of the representative of the Royal Society have to be met, and a hall can probably be hired for a nominal sum. The local Member could give the


impetus, and then, I believe, the thing would spread and have a snowball effect. It would not cost much. If every Member would do the same in his own constituency, not necessarily through the Red Cross but, for instance, with the trade unions or in some other way, a very great deal could be done to achieve our object in a voluntary way, with just as much success as is achieved with rather hide-bound, heavy, official publicity.

Mr. Cyril Bence: I support the hon. Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) in his remarks about the Red Cross, but I would remind him also that the Women's Voluntary Service does an immense amount of work on this human problem with little or no money at all, helping old people and those with young children.

Sir J. Duncan: I mentioned the Red Cross because it was to the Red Cross I went in the County of Angus. There are, of course, the W.V.S., the W.R.I., and other organisations equally good, which are available to Members in their constituencies through which such work as I recommend could be done during the Christmas Recess. I suggest to hon. Members that they see what really can be done with very little money but with just a little bit of push. Once people begin to realise the appalling waste of life and the amount of suffering involved, not to mention the waste of money in the National Health Service and many other ways, they will soon cotton on to the idea. A great deal can be done with publicity of that kind.
I come now to the question of flammability standards. I am very disappointed at the slow progress which has been made in the establishing of British Standards. I wish that people would get on with the job. I hope that it will be possible, as soon as something is settled, for both lengths of material and made-up garments to be marked so that people wishing to buy—not only the wholesale buyer but the ordinary housewife who goes in to a shop to buy for herself—may quite clearly see whether an article is flameproof or not. It is no good leaving it to the manufacturer to put a "Kite" mark on the selvedge of a length of cloth. That is all right for the shop, but it is no good for the customer.
We have a long way to go before we can have laid down, first of all, a standard of flammability or non-flammability, and then have it well established in the mind of the customer in the shop that he or she should always go for the "non-flam" material. It should be possible for the customer always immediately to see, either by a mark on the garment or on the selvedge of a length of cloth, whether an article is non-flam or not. I hope it will not be long before we get these standards, and that a great deal of publicity will be given to them when we have them.
I know the enormous amount of damage that is done to children's lives and health through burns. Christmas time is the time of parties and of pretty party frocks. I do not know what party frocks are made of these days. The materials are made of all sorts of mixtures. Some of them may be highly inflammable, but the frocks worn by children at Christmas parties are all pretty. There is a potential tragedy at every Christmas party should those dresses come into contact with a naked flame.
I never forget the demonstration given by a lady in a Committee Room upstairs. The right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) will remember it. It was dramatic to see a piece of flammable cloth placed over a lighted candle and watch it disappear completely in smoke and then to see a flame-proof article placed over the candle with the result that it hardly burnt at all. It was a most dramatic demonstration, and I only wish that such demonstrations could be given in halls throughout the country so that everybody could be given a visible demonstration. Such demonstrations might be shown on films and on the television. They would show the enormous difference between flammable and non-flammable materials.
The Standing Inter-Departmental Committee on Accidents in the Home—an awfully long title—is as far as I can make out entirely composed of civil servants. I have a list of its members. A civil servant, admittedly a senior one from the Home Office, is the chairman of the Committee. The Committee last reported either in 1953 or 1954—I forget which—and has not, as far as I know, produced anything very effective since then. Can my hon. and learned Friend


who is responsible for this body, because its chairman comes under his purview, say what it is doing? Can he induce it to produce a report? Can he say whether it is meeting regularly and really doing something? I do not say that it is not, but I just do not know, because it never produces any published results of its labours.
I suggest that my hon. and learned Friend should take over the chairmanship of the Committee. It would be a very good idea if he did. It would still be an inter-Departmental committee and, perhaps, instead of being a standing committee it might sit. Presumably if it sits it might at some time lay an egg. We should be able to question the Minister more actively and with greater intelligence on the results of its labours. I believe that if we could get my hon. and learned Friend to take the chair it would strengthen that Committee and help us in our campaign. I notice that there is a representative of the Scottish Education Department on the Committee.
The last suggestion I wish to make is in connection with more publicity about this matter in schools. As has been said by other hon. Members this afternoon, I believe that a great deal can be done by the children themselves. If we can get the children interested we shall, through them, get the parents interested. It has been suggested that there might be an essay competiton for school children. I have not done this, but I put it to hon. Members that they might themselves perhaps offer a prize for the best essay by school children on the prevention of accidents in the home. I might think of doing this myself next year. Why not? Why ask the Government always to provide the money for a prize? It need not be a very expensive prize. For instance, it might take the form of a book about the House of Commons, or something like that—anything which would encourage children to think about the subject.
Teachers might be interested in giving the children a little instruction in order that they may get the background for their essays. The teachers themselves could get the necessary information through the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, at any rate in Scotland, and also, I believe, in England. I hope that the teachers will enlist the

support of the fire brigades and ask them to give demonstrations on school premises of what happens not only at a fire to the house itself but of the effect of fire on certain materials, and how fires are caused in a home.
I should like to see the police brought in to lecture to children on the subject. After all, the police lecture to children on road safety. I have seen the most elaborate arrangements made in school playgrounds where the police come along and teach children how to cross the road in safety. Why not have an exhibition in schools run by the police showing how to prevent accidents in the home? The fire brigades could be encouraged to do a lot more. I do not think that the fire brigade in my area has yet done anything in this direction, but I agree that it may have been done by fire brigades in some areas.
These are the sort of things which those who represent the Scottish Education Department on the Inter-Departmental Committee might well take up with the Scottish Education Department. I hope that the Inspector of Schools in England, who is another member of the Committee, might do the same in respect of England and Wales.
I believe that if we can get the children interested in home safety they will see that their parents become interested. A child will say, "Mummy, I do not want that dress; it is flammable."—"That fireguard is dangerous. We must get one which prevents sparks flying out." It is astonishing how children can run their parents nowadays, and I believe that if they were allowed to do so in this matter it would save an enormous amount of money and waste and would result in an economy in hospital costs and labour costs caused by absence through illness and would, in the end, save the taxpayer money, the taxpayer who is already heavily overburdened by having to make a contribution to all Government services.

5.19 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Bence: I intervene in the debate because of some remarks made by the hon. Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) and by other hon. Members earlier in the debate. This is a sort of job which does not need money from the centre. It needs the attention and the consciousness of people, as it were, at the perimeter.


It is the sort of job which can be done by all sorts of people living in urban and country areas.
My wife, who is very interested in the subject of safety in the home, has promulgated an idea in the borough in which we live of trying to get middle-aged people, men and women, in every road and street to undergo training in first-aid and in the observation of defects. The idea is that if an invalid person or a child is left at home these people can keep an eye on them and can be called upon in an emergency to render first-aid and thus, perhaps, remedy a situation which might develop into something more serious if not attended to at once.
My wife and I feel that throughout the country there are numbers of voluntary organisations which are not adequately informed and kept aware of lots of things they can do, things which do not require money but the personal attention of a socially-conscious person. Such an organisation is the Women's Voluntary Service. My wife is an organiser of one of the W.V.S. divisions, and she has many times told me of very serious cases of injury in the home to elderly people. She and the other ladies in the group could have done a lot to prevent home accidents to elderly people had they been informed by those in a position to give the information that there was a resident whose state of health was such as to make it advisable for certain things to be done in that home.
For instance, only a few weeks ago the group did a lady's washing because the last time she did it she scalded herself. The group was informed and now, in rota, they do her washing. That lady is, therefore, not likely to be scalded again, as she will not attempt to use the boiler. Again, in the homes of old people the shilling-in-the-slot gas meters can also be a danger. Perhaps the 1s. has been put into the meter, the gas tap turned on, and there has been a knock oat the door. Absentmindedly, having answered the call to the door, an elderly person can forget that the gas was turned on.
All this boils down to the fact that all local authorities can use these voluntary organisations of women by giving them information so that where there are elderly people, and I am thinking mainly in terms of old-age pensioners who are

house-bound, help can be afforded. I think of elderly persons handicapped by arthritis or rheumatism who, perhaps by handling utensils too heavy for them, are liable to scald themselves. Although, because of my sex, I am not a member of the W.V.S., I have a great deal to do with it. I do what I can to help. I do feel that the local authorities should keep in touch with these organisations—very much as the W.V.S. in Clydebank keep in close touch with the National Assistance Board. They get a lot of information from the Board, and individual members of the Clydebank W.V.S. can, in need, give any help a pensioner may need.
Another organisation that can do a lot of work is the Electrical Association for Women, with which my wife is also connected. That organisation was formed specifically for the purpose of bringing to gatherings of housewives people versed in the uses of electricity and in its dangers. The lecturer comes from the electricity board, and the lecture costs nothing. The gas board will do the same thing for associations that apply. It will send people who will give first-class lectures and demonstrations, not only on the useful purposes of these two commodities, but on their dangers.
The local authorities and the Government should encourage those two organisations. They can provide a wonderful channel through which the Home Office and the local authorities can issue literature, organise lectures and demonstrations; they can spread the information around to the homes in the areas in which they operate. I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will consider issuing such material through those two bodies. If he does, speaking for the W.V.S., I know that they will respond 100 per cent.

5.25 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. J. E. S. Simon): The whole House will be grateful to the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) for raising the subject of this debate. It is one in which I think, public concern and interest has been increasingly roused, in recent years, and not a little of that increased concern and interest has been due to the activities of the hon. Lady herself. We know from a matter to which she adverted with great


delicacy that she would be entitled in this matter to be listened to with sympathy in any event but in point of fact she speaks with great authority on this subject, having been closely concerned with it and having put in a great deal of effort over a great number of years.
I am glad, too, that a tribute was paid to my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mrs. McLaughlin) for the work she has done in this field. My right hon. Friend is very grateful indeed for the work done by the Parliamentary Home Safety Group. Although my right hon. Friend was technically responsible for the exhibition in this House earlier in the year, it was that group which put on the exhibition and did all the work. That exhibition did a considerable amount of good, and a debate like this is in itself of the greatest value in securing publicity for this cause. That is why I purposely stayed my intervention as late as possible, because it is of great value that the speeches of Members of Parliament should be reported in their local newspapers so that the country as a whole becomes alive to the importance of this issue. From the speeches that have been made, I know hon. Members need no reminder as to its importance.
Again, the hon. Member for Coat-bridge and Aidrie has raised this subject on a very timely occasion. We all know that this is particularly the season of children and the season when the older members of the family are brought into the family circle. We know, also, that in many households it will be a season of tragedy. Therefore, the fact that this debate is raised at this moment may be of value in minimising the tragedies that we know will inevitably happen this Christmas.
A number of hon. Members have made very valuable suggestions, and if I do not advert to them all I know those Members will forgive me, but I will advert to all those with which I have time to deal. Perhaps I can say that I will draw the attention of the various authorities that seem to me to be responsible to the suggestions made. There is the Ministry of Education, and there are the local education authorities. There is my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, who

has been sitting here throughout this debate. He will, no doubt, consider the question of the use of the hospital endowments, and I know that he will consider enlisting the help of the Central Council for Health Education in a field in which it may be able to be of assistance. I will draw the attention of the local authority organisations to the matters which concern them.
A valuable suggestion was made as to the part which fire insurance offices might play, and the Royal Institute of British Architects, I think, would be interested in some of the suggestions which have been made. The suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan), and taken up in a slightly different connection by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) about the part Members of Parliament can play locally, particularly in enlisting the aid of local voluntary organisations at a time like this of financial stringency, is of the greatest value.
That brings me, I am afraid, to the question of the Home Office grant to R.S.P.A. I am bound to point out that when the grant was renewed three years ago it was made perfectly plain that it was for three years only. The R.S.P.A. has approached the Home Secretary about the renewal of the grant, and members of the Parliamentary Home Safety Group have naturally identified themselves with the request. Of course, the Government will take full account of the views which have been expressed in this debate, but I am bound to remind the House that the grant was a strictly limited one for a strictly limited purpose. If it is not renewed it does not mean that this campaign should or need fail, for the reasons which have been given by so many hon. Ladies and Gentlemen during this debate, especially those indicated by my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus and the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East.
I think, too, that it is unreal to compare a grant made in respect of road accidents with that made in respect of home accidents. It is perfectly true that—

ROYAL ASSENT

5.32 p.m.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners:

The House went:—and, having returned;

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Expiring Laws Continuance Act, 1957.
2. Yarmouth Naval Hospital Transfer Act, 1957.
3. Public Works Loans Act, 1957.
4. British Transport Commission Order Confirmation Act, 1957.
5. Church of Scotland (General Trustees) Order Confirmation Act, 1957.
6. Dundee Corporation (Consolidated Powers) Order Confirmation Act, 1957.
7. Clyde Lighthouses Order Confirmation Act, 1957.

HOME SAFETY

Question again proposed, That this House do now adjourn.

5.44 p.m.

Mr. Simon: When the House adjourned to accompany you to another place, Mr. Speaker, I was dealing with the question of the grant and I was submitting to the House that it is unreal to compare the figures of road accidents with those of home accidents in relation to the grant. The right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) has done much in this field, but, nevertheless, he put it incautiously when he said that the incidence of danger is greater in the home than on the road. That, of course, is not so.
The reason why there are more home accidents than road accidents is that people spend more time in the home than on the road. We have only to go out into Parliament Square in the rush hour to see at once that it is a very different place from the peace and quiet of most of our homes, and even those of us who suffer at this time of the year from an irruption of schoolchildren nevertheless would regard our homes as superior from

the point of view of safety and peace to Piccadilly Circus in the middle of the day.

Mrs. Mann: Is not the greater figure for home accidents due to the fact that there are more homes than there are roads?

Mr. Simon: That is a very difficult piece of statistical analysis. It is rather like comparing a herring with three farthings. The fact remains that people spend very much more time in their homes, particularly old people. As the hon. Lady pointed out, the bulk of this problem and, what is particularly serious, the part of the problem which is least amenable to action on our part and least likely to be affected, is accidents to old people.
Old people spend much of their time in the home and, as the hon. Lady pointed out, over 70 per cent. of home accidents happen to people aged 65 and over, and over two-thirds of that figure refers to people aged 75 and over. The truth is that the bulk of home accidents are accidents to old people. They are accidents caused mainly by falls. A great deal can be done in the way the hon. Lady and other hon. Members have suggested, but the only real long-term cure is the better design of homes and the provision of homes specifically for old people.
A number of hon. Members raised the question of domestic burning accidents. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Dr. D. Johnson) dealt particularly with the danger to children in that respect, but I must say that from his speech it was not precisely clear whether he was putting himself forward as a careful father or a great lover. Again, the majority of the fatal burning accidents in the home occur to people aged 65 and over, but over two-thirds of the non-fatal accidents in the home from burning happen to children. Those are the facts revealed by a careful survey carried out at the Birmingham General Hospital. I tended to be rather pessimistic about the preventability of accidents to old people, particularly those caused by falls, but there is no question that the bulk of burning accidents to young children are preventable.
A reference has been made to the inquiry of the British Standards Institution, and I can well understand the disappointment expressed by the hon. Lady.


the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend. We must face the fact that the result of the inquiry comes to this, that nearly all light-weight fabrics make potentially dangerous garments. Nevertheless, some are obviously much more dangerous than others, and I am sure that hon. Ladies and hon. Gentlemen are right when they say that the loose, floating garment is the one which attracts particular risk, especially nightdresses.
The right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) has been carrying on a campaign against nightdresses in the town which we both represent. I think we can well follow that example on the lines which my hon. Friend suggested, and which the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East also suggested. Let us all join in the pyjama game, and countless accidents will be saved.
In addition, research and development in the flame-proofing of fabrics is progressing in a number of places, notably at the British Cotton Industry Research Association Institute at Shirley, and by a number of commercial interests as well. In order to facilitate the establishment of a British standard of flame-resistant fabric for apparel, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has undertaken to issue new regulations under the Fabrics (Misdescription) Act of 1913, and we hope that other Government Departments are also collaborating in the B.S.I.'s work in producing a standard.
Now I turn to the question of fireguards, which is closely associated with fire dangers. The great difficulty here, which has been faced in this debate, is that for effective enforcement there must be inspection. That was the lesson in the early days of all the Factory Acts, and it has been the lesson in many other spheres where a sanction has been erected and not backed by inspection.
This is a sphere where inspection is really not acceptable. I do not think any of us would be prepared to have inspectors of local authorities going into private houses to see if the fire was properly protected. So I think hon. Members are right when they say that the answer here is education, and particularly knowledge of the improvements that have been made, especially as regards the new fireguard for coal fires which has been developed in the course of the last year

and of which the exhibition upstairs included an example.
I was asked a number of questions about electrical appliances in the house and what the Ministry of Power had done about gas and electrical dangers. My right hon. and noble Friend has asked the nationalised industries to pay particular attention to this problem. I hope it is not being indiscreet to say that I think hon. and right hon. Members are right when they say that the results are not very striking. I suppose that is natural, because we cannot really expect a commercial institution to draw attention to the dangers of the appliances they sell. Nevertheless, my right hon. and noble Friend has drawn the attention of the nationalised industries to their duties in this respect.
As regards the new electrical appliances, there is no question that the electrical industry has a very good record. Considering the enormous growth in the use of domestic, electrical appliances, there has been a minimal increase in home accidents from that source. I do not mean to say that there is not room for knowledge and for improvement there, but nevertheless that is not the major danger in the home.

Mr. Marquand: The hon. and learned Gentleman has said that it is not reasonable to expect a commercial undertaking to do anything to hamper the sale of its products. Might it not be reasonable to expect a commercial undertaking to advertise, "Your old products, if bought before such and such a date, may be dangerous. Why not buy a new one?"

Mr. Simon: If I may say so with respect, that seems to me a very valuable suggestion, and I will draw that, with the other suggestions made in the debate, specifically to the attention of my right hon. and noble Friend. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Hunter) mentioned the danger of coal-gas poisoning. Again my right hon. and noble Friend has appointed a Standing Committee on Coal Gas Poisoning to keep this matter under review and to give assistance in that respect.

Mr. Hunter: Since I spoke about an hour ago, the hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie has handed me a paper which shows that there were three more deaths yesterday. There was


one in Glasgow and there were two in Middlesex through gas leaking from pipes.

Mr. Simon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
I turn now to the question put by the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East about home safety committees. I am sure he is right in saying that it is in the growth of those committees that the major advance is to be looked for. The formation of the one-hundredth committee was announced recently. That is encouraging so far as it goes, but of course 100 committees cover only a very small part of the country and many more are needed.
I do not believe that local authorities are sufficiently aware of the power they possess under the National Health Service Act and under the equivalent Scottish Act to help in home safety measures. Health education can form part of their approved proposals for the prevention of illness, so they do have power. My hon. Friend asked specifically about the Scottish circular, and I believe the hon. Lady also referred to it. They asked what success that has had. I am told it is too early to assess this yet, but, on the whole, the effects seem to be encouraging. However, I would not like to commit myself to any specific statistics at the moment.
In relation to this country my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health is going to send out a circular on much the same lines as the Scottish one, which we hope will go out from the Ministry early in the New Year. It will deal with the matters covered by the Scottish circular, namely, urging the authorities to take the initiative in their own localities to establish local home safety committees on the lines suggested by the right hon. Gentleman. It will also draw attention to the valuable advice which health visitors can give to parents of young children and to old people, as they go about their ordinary business of visiting houses. In addition to the useful educational work that can be undertaken at welfare clinics and by volunteer organisations such as the Women's Voluntary Services, the Women's Institutes and so on, it will contain what I hope will be a useful appendix on burns and scalds, and their prevention.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me about statistics, the respective figures of accidents from unguarded open fires, from electrical fires, and so on. I am afraid that there are no statistics available at present, although I am told that the experts estimate that there are more from unguarded open fires than from the other type, but probably that is because there are more such fires. However, in the circular we are asking hospitals to supply statistical information to medical officers of health about the incidence of serious home accidents, in the form of quarterly figures giving age, sex, nature of accident and so on. I hope that will fill the gap to which the hon. Lady and the right hon. Gentleman drew attention.
I am afraid that I have not the time to deal with all the matters which have been raised. I should like just to mention the Standing Inter-Departmental Committee on Accidents in the Home, because I think that my hon. and gallant Friend was a little unfair to it. Its job is to correlate activity at the official level. I am convinced that I should be doing far more harm than good if I interfered with that body. It has done very valuable work, particularly during the last year in its contribution to the British Standards Institution's investigation, in which it played a major part.
In the end we come down to the point which has rightly been made by so many right hon. and hon. Members, that this is a matter in which we are all concerned. The Government can do a good deal in the way of co-ordination, putting material in the hands of local authorities, and drawing attention to their powers. Local authorities can do a great deal. Individual Members of Parliament can do a great deal, as they have been doing. There is no need to go as far as my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary did. She pointed the moral by coming home from a home safety exhibition which she had opened, mounting a chair and falling off it and breaking her wrist. If there are hon. Members who are prepared to go to those lengths to give publicity to the cause of home safety, their efforts will be very acceptable.
In the end, it is the private individual in his or her home who can make a great advance in this matter, and it is by the, combined effort of everyone that these disastrous accidents can be reduced.

ROYAL AIR FORCE (GLIDING)

6.3 p.m.

Major Sir Roger Conant: There is very little connection between the most interesting and important subject that we have been considering for the past hour-and-a-half and the one that I desire to raise, recruiting for the Royal Air Force. I suppose there are still some people who take up the Royal Air Force as a career because they are keen on flying. There are, in fact, very few Joining the Royal Air Force who become pilots. Rather more obtain flying as aircrew, but the great majority remain on the ground.
I believe that recruitment would be greatly helped if it were possible to provide more recreational flying facilities not only for those who fly during the week in Royal Air Force machines, but also for those who are engaged in other duties, not excluding the W.R.A.F. and the other ancilliary services.
I have no personal experience of power flying as a recreation—I regard it as extremely expensive, very noisy and rather dangerous—but there are no doubt many people to whom it brings a measure of enjoyment. On the other hand, gliding is cheap, very peaceful and quite safe, and I cannot think of any better antidote for those in the Royal Air Force who spend weekdays in jet aircraft than to spend the weekend in a sailplane.
If the R.A.F. is to obtain recruits through gliding, it is obvious that two things must be accomplished. First, the Royal Air Force must interest the potential recruit in the Air Training Corps or any other movement in the sport of gliding. Secondly, the Royal Air Force must be in a position to tell him, once he is interested, that he will obtain better gliding facilities if he joins the Royal Air Force than if he does not.
I know that for many years efforts have been made to interest cadets belonging to the Air Training Corps in gliding, but, although I have no criticism of the training, which, from what I have seen, is very well carried out, I am very doubtful whether a large percentage of the cadets who attend courses at weekend schools or at the permanent establishment at Hawkinge join the Royal Air Force over

and above those who would have done so in any case. However, I have not seen the figures, and I should not like to say that too definitely.
My doubt is due to the fact that the training at the schools and at Hawkinge is carried only as far as the "B" standard. That standard represents the stage where the pupil does one circuit of the airfield in a primary glider or sometimes in a two-seater flown solo. That is the limit of his training. When I was at the "B" standard I was still terribly frightened, and I am sure that if it were possible to include soaring experience in the course of the training a far higher percentage of the cadets who pass through the schools would become bitten by the sport and become really keen.
Gliding, in these days, is not a matter of being pushed off a hill and settling in the valley below, nor is it even a matter of being launched by a winch up to 600 or 700 ft. and landing where one started about five minutes later. Present day gliding with the modern high performance sailplanes is floating in the clouds, not for minutes but for hours on end, and, if one can afford the cost of being brought home, of travelling long distances across country. That is possible after comparatively little experience.
I feel that the cadet who has done only a circuit of an airfield, and has perhaps not even seen other people soaring, has very little idea of the sport. He might compare it with teaching a boy to fish. One buys him a rod and teaches him how to use it, but he does not become an angler until he has caught a fish, any more than the glider pupil becomes a glider enthusiast until he has experienced soaring.
In spite of the criticisms which I have made, I am sure that there are some cadets who become extraordinarily keen. What can the Royal Air Force then tell them which will persuade them to join? First, they can be told that gliding in the Royal Air Force clubs is considerably cheaper than it is in civilian clubs by reason of the fact that an airfield does not have to be bought or rented, hangerage is usually provided, there is far more technical skill among the members of a Royal Air Force club, and there is usually no need to keep trained technicians to maintain and repair the gliders. For those reasons, gliding in the Royal


Air Force is a considerably cheaper sport than it is in civilian life.
One can also tell the potential recruit—I say this as one possessing very limited experience of one Royal Air Force club—that a Royal Air Force gliding club does not suffer from the crowding at weekends from which many civilian clubs suffer. One of the difficulties about civilian clubs is that at weekends people sometimes have to wait a long time to get a launch. I do not think that that is so of Royal Air Force clubs, certainly not of all of them. There is more flying available in the time. One would then have to tell them that gliding is encouraged in the Royal Air Force.
If a recruit is extremely lucky, he may, in the course of his career in the Royal Air Force, be actually posted to a station where there is a gliding club. On the other hand, he is more likely to have to travel quite a long way, 20 or 30 miles, at his own expense to reach a station where there is a gliding club or to the nearest civilian club. Of course, it is only fair to say that most members of civilian clubs have to travel about the same distance to reach their clubs.
I want to make one or two suggestions to meet the criticisms which I have been putting forward. It may not be practicable, of course, to extend training for the A.T.C. up to "C" standard. One reason is that the Air Ministry sites its aerodromes on flat spaces whereas the older gliding clubs usually try to get near a range of mountains so that members can soar on the hill when the wind is in the right direction and obtain many more hours of flying in that way.
That does not apply to the case of the Royal Air Force either in training or in the clubs subsequently and, therefore, it takes longer to reach the "C" certificate standard. But it is worth examining whether training could not be carried out, if not wholly at any rate partially, by aero-towed launch up to, say, 2,000 feet instead of as at present either by winch or auto-tow to about 600 feet and by using, instead of the excellent machine, the Sedburgh, now used, the more modern T.42 two-seater for training.
The result of that would be that flights would be very much longer and, therefore, with higher launches during their training, pupils would have experience of

soaring which they would not otherwise obtain. It is my belief that the cost of an aero-tow and of other forms of launching do not differ very much, and it may well be cheaper to use aero-tow. I can judge only from the charges which are made at civilian clubs. The charge at Lasham, for instance—and it is the same with most civilian clubs—is 15s. for an aero-tow to 2,000 feet and 4s. for a winch launch or auto-launch up to an average of 600 feet—we will take that as a basis.
If one were to use a high performance machine for training like the T.42, a 2,000 feet launch would give one a flight of perhaps 20 minutes and the cost would, therefore, work out at 9d. per minute. A launch to 600 feet by winch would last about five minutes and, although mathematics is not my strong point, I make that about 9⅗d. per minute. That may not be exact and it leaves out of account the fact that on the higher launch one would be far more likely to meet thermal currents and, therefore, extend the time of flight.
The other suggestion which I venture to make concerns travel. It is obviously impossible to have R.A.F. gliding clubs at all stations, though one would hope that the numbers would gradually increase as more people became keen on the sport. One answer to the considerable travelling difficulties which people have and the difficulty of running a club when most members live 20 or 30 miles away and where many of the jobs have to be done by very few people living on the spot would be to subsidise transport.
A better method would be if it were possible, for the initial recruit, in any case, to allow those who were keen on gliding to be posted on application to a station which has a gliding club. One can see many difficulties in the case of married men in married quarters, but that is certainly worthy of consideration, perhaps not immediately, but as the number of clubs grows. At the moment, there are, I believe, only eight or nine.
I have another point to make concerning aircraft. Other things being equal, a man keen on gliding would much prefer to join a club which had good sailplanes, high performance machines, even though, when he joined, he was not himself qualified to fly them. The larger civilian clubs have a very wide range of sailplanes and


certainly one R.A.F. club, at Andover, has them. However, owing to the limited size of the R.A.F. clubs, most of them, I believe, have a very limited range of aircraft—although I have only a very small experience of such clubs. It is a point to be considered that in trying to attract people who are keen on gliding that such people would prefer to join a club with a good shop window of aircraft.
Another topic concerns badges, particularly international badges—the Silver "C" and the Gold "C". Is there any possibility of those being worn in the course of duty in uniform by those members of the R.A.F. Who have achieved those distinctions in the gliding world? To some small extent that might attract recruits into joining the Royal Air Force.
One has to remember that in trying to attract recruits one is competing against the civilian clubs and that one's aim must be not only to provide cheaper gliding, but better gliding and all that that means—better facilities in every way. I hope that some of the comments I have made may contribute in a small way towards that end.
One last matter which concerns my hon. Friend is the position of the airfield at Lasham, where the Surrey Gliding Club and a number of other clubs make their home. They have been having to live with considerable insecurity of tenure, under one month's notice, for many years because it was not possible for the Air Ministry to decide whether or not that airfield would be needed for other purposes. However, last September my hon. Friend told me that the Air Ministry had decided that it had no further need to retain Lasham Airfield and that, unless it was needed by other Departments, it would be offered back to its original owner and it would then be for the clubs which resided there to come to terms with whoever bought the airfield.
I realise that these negotiations are bound to take time, but the matter is extremely urgent. There is a hangar there which is holding extremely valuable sailplanes which, I am informed, is likely to come down as soon as a gale blows up. Quite apart from the desire to improve amenities—a desire which every club has—I hope that the matter can be accelerated as much as possible and I should be very much obliged if I could

have the latest information about it from my hon. Friend.

6.19 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Charles Orr-Ewing): I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Sir R. Conant) for raising this subject. I understand and share his enthusiasm for gliding. In fact, it was he who, at Dunstable, a little more than a year ago, introduced me to the sport, and I am very grateful to him for having given me that chance. It certainly is a delightful sport and anything which I can do as the result of the comments my hon. Friend has made to make it more widely available, I will most certainly do—provided that it does not lead us into economic difficulties. It also gives me an opportunity of telling the House a little about what we are doing to encourage this fine sport both for the youth of the country, through the Air Training Corps, and within the Royal Air Force itself, in the gliding clubs.
I must, however, first make it clear that from the R.A.F. point of view gliding is essentially a sport. My hon. Friend referred to it several times as a sport, and I endorse that view. We must say that it is of little immediate practical value for Royal Air Force flying training, but we realise that it is a sport which encourages an interest in aviation and which is, therefore, specially suitable for boys in the Air Training Corps and the Combined Cadet Forces.
Just as small-boat sailing develops a love and respect for the sea, so gliding develops a love and understanding of the air. It helps to develop a knowledge, for example, of winds, clouds and weather, and a love of the countryside over which one glides. It also helps to develop a form of self-reliance and self-confidence, and this is of value in the cadet training syllabus as a test of character.
For just the same reasons it is an ideal spare time activity for R.A.F. personnel and, within the practical limits of finance, which I have already mentioned—and of our view that it is basically a sport—we give it all the encouragement we can. Gliding is already officially recognised as a sport in the Royal Air Force. There are at present nine R.A.F. gliding clubs, and a tenth is in process of being formed.


These clubs receive financial help from non-public funds, and we are also able to give a limited amount of help from public funds.
We make no charge for the use of airfields or buildings; we provide free heating and lighting; we help the clubs with their travelling expenses when they travel to take part in team competitions, and to that extent travel is subsidised, and if, by any sad chance, accidents should occur, members have just the same entitlement to consideration for non-effective benefits as if they had been on duty.
My hon. Friend suggested that we might go further and give some more help to the R.A.F. gliding clubs. He made the point that by expanding facilities for gliding within the R.A.F. we should be able to offer boys in the Cadet Forces the attraction of much better opportunities for continuing their gliding when they enter the R.A.F., as we naturally hope that they will do.
I need hardly tell the House that we attach great importance to any measures which will help our recruiting drive, but the House will also appreciate that in present financial circumstances we must weigh the merits of every proposal with considerable care. As I have already said, gliding experience is nowadays of very limited value as an introduction to R.A.F. flying training, and it also has little practical application to the more technical sides of the Service.
We feel, therefore, that while gliding is a fine sport and one very especially appropriate in the R.A.F., it should continue to be regarded mainly as a sport and that the mainspring of its advance should, therefore, be the private initiative of individual enthusiasts. We do not feel that we should be justified in extending the financial help that we already give—which, as I have tried to indicate, is already by no means inconsiderable.
One suggestion which my hon. Friend made was that, as an alternative to giving more free travel for gliding, we might arrange postings so that gliding enthusiasts should find themselves on stations where clubs are in existence. I sympathise with this idea, but there are practical difficulties, as my hon. Friend foresaw. Postings are governed by a wide range of factors which we find it

difficult to reconcile, and it would be difficult to post to one of the nine stations, all those individual enthusiasts who wanted to glide. But if we are successful in spreading this enthusiasm for gliding throughout the Royal Air Force that task will become easier. I will certainly bear in mind my hon. Friend's suggestion.
Before I turn to the question of gliding for cadets perhaps I may be forgiven for making a brief reference to the light aircraft flying clubs in the R.A.F. During the last year or two R.A.F. enthusiasts have made considerable headway in this direction, and we are now looking around for ways in which we might help flying clubs in the same way as we do gliding clubs. I appreciate that this does not come strictly within the context of my hon. Friend's speech, but I think that, with me, he is an enthusiast for getting young people into the air, and he will perhaps agree that even powered flying is some satisfaction, although I know that he is a great enthusiast for the sailplane. There are at present six of these flying clubs, using, in the main, Tiger Moths and Austers, and they are making very worthwhile strides.
I now turn to the gliding which we provide for cadets of the Air Training Corps and for the R.A.F. Section of the Combined Cadet Forces. I am well aware that, ideally, it would be very desirable to provide more of this gliding and to take training to a higher standard than we do at present. I am in constant contact with those who, by their splendid voluntary work, have made the A.T.C. what it is, and they leave me in no doubt that gliding and flying are the two aspects of A.T.C. activity which most attract the youth of the country.
The amount of gliding which we do in the A.T.C. is not insignificant. We have one full-time gliding school and 20 week-end flying schools, and in the six months up to September, 1957, no less than 46,000 launches have taken place in the A.T.C. That is a very considerable total.
We have been giving much thought to the question of expanding and improving our cadet gliding organisation and I am hopeful that we may be able to do something in this direction in the fairly near future, provided, as always, that we can find the money for it. The task of assessing the relative importance of


conflicting claims on the resources available to us is one of constant difficulty, and there will inevitably be disadvantages whichever way we decide these issues. For my own part, I am convinced that our Cadet Forces are of the greatest importance, both as a source of R.A.F. personnel of the future and, more generally, as a means of spreading air-mindedness among the youth of Britain. The work that gliding does in fostering this is of first-class importance.
Only last week I paid a visit to our main cadet gliding centre at Hawkinge, near Folkestone, and I was most impressed with the work that is being done there and with its potentialities in further strengthening the Air Training Corps. At present, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, cadet gliding is taken only as far as an elementary level of proficiency, known as the "B" certificate. We do not, as a rule, allow soaring, and the necessary instruments have been removed from our gliders to ensure that soaring cannot be undertaken in heavy cloud conditions.
The reason is simply that our gliding effort is not unlimited, and we believe that the capacity we have is best used if we offer gliding to the largest possible number of cadets. Basically, the choice is between giving an elementary training to a larger number, or higher training to a smaller number. Since, as I have indicated, our first aim in this matter is to attract boys into the A.T.C. and then to stimulate their interest in aviation once they have joined, I feel sure that we have made the right decision, but I will most carefully examine the proposals which my hon. Friend has put forward this afternoon in relation to giving a few boys the opportunity of going up to the "C" certificate, and also his proposal that we might consider aerial tow, again for a few of the more proficient cadets or airmen, with an opportunity of thus giving them a chance of gaining their "C" certificate more quickly. I will certainly examine both those proposals.
There is, however, one important way in which a boy may take his aviation well beyond elementary gliding. If he is really keen to make flying his career, and has the ability and aptitude which we need for aircrew duties, he can benefit under the Flying Scholarship Scheme. This is open to both the A.T.C. and the R.A.F. section of the Combined Cadet

Force. Subject to appropriate tests, a boy can be trained at our expense on light aircraft up to the standard of the private pilot's licence. We award up to 350 scholarships each year and they give the young enthusiast a first-class chance to make progress in aviation.
My hon. Friend raised the question of providing aero-tow and I should like to examine the costs which he mentioned. He gave figures which worked out at 9d., and 9⅗d. per minute. He said that those figures were approximate. I will examine them in detail and write to him on the subject. Another useful proposal made by my hon. Friend was that badges, awarded perhaps by an international authority should be worn, by those who were proficient, on their Royal Air Force uniforms. I will look into that proposal most carefully.
My hon. Friend referred also to Lasham airfield. I have had some correspondence with him on this subject, and with other hon. Members, but it might be helpful if I summarised the present position. The Royal Air Force no longer wants the airfield and there is no other Government need for the land apart from a minor Ministry of Supply interest which need not at this stage affect the main question of the airfield's future. We therefore intend to dispose of the land. Naturally, our first thought would be to offer it to the former owner.
Before we can get down to this, we must take account of the views of the local planning authority on the future use of the land. We have had preliminary discussions with the authority and have now applied formally for a planning determination. When this is received the district valuer, who has been instructed on our behalf, will open negotiations with the former owner. That is the order in which these things must work.
We realise the desirability of reaching conclusions on the future of the airfield and we shall do our part with all possible speed. My hon. Friends will appreciate, however, that this is not a question which can be settled in a matter of days or even weeks. It must be for the clubs themselves, in the light of the information which we have given to them, to decide what steps they should take to maintain or improve their facilities.
Meanwhile, I can give an assurance that I, and my hon. Friend the Joint


Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation, with whom I am in constant touch on this matter—and who, in turn, is keeping the British Gliding Association fully informed—will continue to keep a close personal watch on the problem. We are glad that we have been able to help the clubs at Lasham in the past, and we are fully mindful of their present and future interests.
Although I have been unable to agree with, or even to reply to, all the proposals made by my hon. Friend for improving facilities in gliding in the Royal Air Force and the Air Training Corps, I am very glad that he has raised this subject. It enables me to stress once more the value we attach to gliding as a sport and the part it can play in fostering these cadet forces. I wish to thank my hon. Friend for the trouble he has taken in examining this problem and in visiting stations, and I will write to him about those proposals to which I have not been able to reply.

N.A.T.O. CONFERENCE (COMMUNIQUE)

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Edward Heath): It may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that a few copies of the communiqué issued from the N.A.T.O. Conference in Paris are now available in the Vote Office.
I wish to emphasise that this text has been sent to this side of the Channel by Reuters. The number of copies is limited, but we will endeavour to increase it during the course of the evening.

ATOMIC POWER STATIONS (SITING)

6.35 p.m.

Mr. A. Blenkinsop: I must call the attention of the House to the subject of this debate, although I am sure that hon. Members wish to consider the communiqué which has been issued from Paris. I hope, however, that it will be recognised that the matter I wish to raise is one of very real concern to us all.
On 6th May this year I put a Question to the Paymaster-General on the siting of atomic power stations. I asked what action was being taken to avoid the destruction of the natural beauty and coastline of Britain in the planning, siting and construction of new atomic power stations. The right hon. Gentleman said that, in addition to consultations with local and central planning authorities, various amenity bodies were consulted about the proposed site and that the Minister might order a public inquiry to be held. Several hon. Members took up the matter at that time and expressed their concern about what might be happening, almost behind our backs, to the coastline and natural beauty of the country.
I again raised the matter of amenities on 11th November, when I put a Question to the Parliamentary Secretary on the problem of the sites proposed in the Snowdonia National Park. The hon. Member said that an inquiry was to be held in due course, and I again mentioned the desirability of looking into the whole problem of atomic power stations and the effect on the natural beauty and amenities of this country.
It is to that wider matter that I wish briefly to refer tonight. I am concerned not only with specific cases which I shall hope to mention, such as, for example, Trawsfynydd and Edern, but with the very real danger that unless satisfactory planning procedures are carried out we may find that before many years a great deal of the remaining beauty of our coastline and countryside has been snatched away. Whatever the economic advantages which may flow from this exciting development of atomic power, we should continue to have real concern for the lasting values of natural beauty.
The Minister of Power, in a speech which he made in another place earlier this year, said:
…on many occasions I have remarked upon the scars of the first Industrial Revolution which thought nothing about the amenities and paid no attention to the comfort and wellbeing of the people."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 13th March, 1957; Vol. 202, c. 554.]
That is a pertinent and proper remark to make. All of us who have lived in industrial areas which have been destroyed in this way in the past—quite unnecessarily as many of us may consider—are anxious to see that this new exciting


industrial revolution which is about to take place shall not impose further damage upon what little is left of our unspoilt countryside. In the past private enterprise has done its worst, and we do not want public enterprise, in the form of this great Atomic Energy Authority and the Electricity Authority, further to curtail what is left of natural beauty.
We are concerned not merely with the actual building of the power stations but with the ancillary works which will inevitably be associated with them. There is the whole complex of roads, transport facilities, the constructional developments that must take place, the provision of temporary housing for those who are to build the new works, the transmission lines which may cover very large areas of the countryside which are not, in these days, already covered by transmission lines, and also the problem of other industries which may be attracted into the areas once these new stations have been erected, because new industrial districts may be developed isolated from the rest of the community. These are problems which we must keep in mind. We are not thinking solely about the new power stations themselves, but also of what may very well, and perhaps automatically, come with them.
We are assured that before any of these projects go forward there is very careful Ministerial consultation, and I accept that straight away as being correct. We have been assured, and indeed the noble Lord the Minister of Power, in the speech to which I have already referred, dealt at some length with this matter of Ministerial consultations that take place before sites are chosen. One also appreciates that the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, which is responsible, on behalf of the National Parks Commission and other bodies, is the Department to which representations must be made on matters of this kind, and whose approval has to be obtained. Everybody accepts the very real need to allay the serious anxieties that there are today. Nor is it satisfactory merely to rely upon public inquiries into specific cases as they come along.
What I think is the very real difficulty that many of us face is that we urgently want to see the picture as a whole, showing what is to be left to us after the major programme has been completed, and we

cannot usually tell that and do not know it by examining one specific proposal, such as the one at Trawsfynydd in North Wales or the other schemes that have already gone forward in parts of England and the schemes projected in Scotland as well.
Therefore, it seems to many of us that what we want is some opportunity for considering the long-term programme which the Authority should have in order to see to what extent that whole programme affects the amenities of the country. It seems to many of us that it should be possible to establish some form of central consultative committee that could be called upon to give advice about that long-term programme and should be able to discuss the relative advantages and disadvantages of particular proposals in that programme, looking some distance ahead.
One hope that we have is that we shall not think for ever in terms of atomic power stations being sited in the most isolated and, almost automatically, the most beautiful areas of the countryside. We hope the time will come when it will be possible to consider erecting atomic power stations in areas somewhat nearer to the consumers needing the power, and indeed, possibly in areas of declining industry. There are, as we well know, areas in some of our industrial centres, or former industrial centres, where new development is urgently needed and where certainly no damage would be done to beauty or to amenity.
I want to make it quite clear that we realise that this great, important and vital new development is one that can possibly relieve or lift some of the horror of our industrial areas. It is, no doubt, the hope in the future that this new source of power may be the means of bringing greater amenity to many areas that have been blighted in the past, but what we want to be sure about is that, in the process of doing that most admirable thing, we do not destroy other amenities in the meantime.
I particularly ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he will consider quite seriously the point I am making about the possibility of consulting some of the bodies, for example, attached to the Standing Joint Committee on National Parks, which include representatives of most of the major amenity bodies, such as the Council for the Preservation of


Rural England and a body in which I have a special interest, the Ramblers' Association, and others of that kind, which have done most valuable work in this direction. I very much hope that it will be possible to establish some committee of this consultative character, or at least to call in representatives of those bodies to hear what are the long-term programmes of the Authority.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. David Renton): Would the hon. Gentleman clear up one point? Is he suggesting that this central consultative committee, on which representatives of amenity bodies would serve, would be set up to advise the Minister of Power in relation to nuclear power stations only, in relation to all matters which come under his responsibility or to advise on all development matters of that kind?

Mr. Blenkinsop: I am merely raising this specific problem of atomic power stations because of the very wide character of the ways in which they will affect our development in future, I am suggesting that at least this could be tried as an experiment, and we should see how we get on. If we find that we can clear up some of our difficulties in this way, it might be possible to extend their useful advice to wider fields and other forms of power station development, and so on.
This problem is all the more acute because of the number of attacks on our natural amenities by other bodies. We know that it may very well be that the Prime Minister, when he comes back tomorrow, will have other proposals to make which will endanger our country even more. All the more are we anxious about this proposal, but I wish to confine myself to the subject now under discussion.
May I mention one or two matters, by way of illustration, relating to some of the cases now before us? If it is true, as I believe it is, that the siting of atomic power stations is a matter of very real concern to everyone, how much more is it of concern when there are proposals that these stations shall be erected within the areas of National Parks which, by definition, have, in effect, been set aside by the House as areas in which industrial development shall not take place unless

there is some such overriding need of a national character that every other consideration finally has to give way. The tragedy is that in the case of the Trawsfynydd proposal, it comes within the confines of the Snowdonia National Park, and in that of the Edern proposal, it comes within an area of outstanding natural beauty.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: May I point out to my hon. Friend that the Edern site does not come within either the Snowdonia National Park or the designated area of outstanding natural beauty?

Mr. Blenkinsop: I am very glad to have that very proper correction from my hon. Friend and to know that the Edern scheme is actually outside the area designated as being of outstanding natural beauty in the peninsula. It is an area which I personally know very well, and, for the sake of illustration, I want to make a point about these proposals, particularly the Trawsfynydd proposal, concerning the kind of anxiety that has been created. For example, here is an illustration of the way in which we are confronted with plans for the erection of power stations, and one hopes very much that this one will be of greater architectural beauty than some of the power stations that have been erected in the past. No doubt that is within the bounds of possibility. One very much hopes so.
There is the question of the size of the power stations in relation to the surrounding countryside and, of course, there is the very real problem of the pylons and their distribution lines, which are bound to move over very great areas of lovely country. These will be high-power transmission lines, of 275 kV., I understand, and they are likely to be 130 ft. high. They will link up Trawsfynydd with Ffestiniog and no doubt there will be a loop going round to Bangor and Connah's Quay. This is the kind of thing we shall have to meet in all these cases. We are confronted not only with the power stations, but with enormous transmission lines in the National Parks, with new roads and, at any rate temporarily, with the establishments necessary for the constructional work to be carried out.
All this is bound to have a very big effect upon the areas. That is why Lord Strang, Chairman of the National Parks


Commission, has said so vigorously that the Commission could not but regard it as development inconsistent with the maintenance of the areas as a National Parks. The Commission will naturally be presenting evidence at the public inquiry which is to be held, to emphasise his fears and those of the Commission about this development. They hold that the promoters should be called upon:
to demonstrate beyond any doubt that there is no suitable alternative site outside a National Park.
I fully understand the anxieties of my hon. Friends who represent areas with problems of unemployment. I come from an area which suffered very severely from unemployment in the past. Is it not possible, knowing the difficulties about the composition of rock and the need for water, to find a site within Wales which will meet the needs of the local population and will not offend, as I fear this proposal inevitably will, our desire for the maintenance of natural beauty?
I want to give an opportunity to my hon. Friends to say a word on this matter, although it may not be terribly helpful of my plea to the Minister. We are not wishing to prevent development. We are all concerned to see a move made and new sources of power developed. Our problem is to reconcile that development with the equally valid and lasting values which can only be maintained if we insist upon the need to protect certain parts of our countryside. I echo what Lord Dawson said:
Beauty of scenery is not a matter of taste, but a necessity for the mind.
If the country is to face the new industrial development, the need will be the greater for unspoiled areas of country in which people can develop some sense of balance of mind which, unless we are careful, we shall destroy utterly in our attempt to establish a higher standard of living.

6.55 p.m.

Mr. T. W. Jones: I believe that the whole House appreciates the great interest which my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) has displayed in rural amenities. I think he is an officer of the Council for the Preservation of Rural England.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Not of the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, but of the Ramblers' Association.

Mr. Jones: I will not ramble that way any further. I would like the House to know the background to this Trawsfynydd project. A deputation representing the Welsh Parliamentary Labour Party waited upon the highest officers of the Central Electricity Authority. We tried to prevail upon them to establish an atomic power station or stations anywhere in Wales, and particularly in North Wales, because of the bad employment position there, particularly in what is known as Gwynedd. We met Sir Henry Self and Sir Josiah Eccles, two gentlemen of the greatest ability and highest integrity.
We were told that North Wales had been considered, but they were reluctant to go there because of their past experience of objections, in the manner in which my hon. Friend has just objected tonight. We assured the officers of the Central Electricity Authority that no objections would be tolerated on this occasion. For certain reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes), who led the deputation which consisted also of my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarvon (Mr. G. Roberts) and myself, we undertook to silence the objectors. I do not think anybody will regard us as presumptuous for giving that undertaking when the employment position in the areas which we represent is appreciated.
My hon. Friend is interested in the preservation of rural beauty. So am I, but I am interested in something else which is of far greater importance, the preservation of the Welsh way of life. How can that be preserved if people are migrating from Wales year by year, compelled to seek work elsewhere. Penygroes, in Caernarvonshire, is a beautiful place, but the most beautiful things there are the natives, their language, their culture and their songs. We are losing them because unemployment has grown so rapidly there during the last few years. I hate to see a tree being uprooted. I love trees. I have been planting them this last 12 months. But I hate to see men and women being uprooted from their native soil, as has been happening in the constituencies which I have mentioned.
Let us turn to Trawsfwydd in North Wales where it is proposed to build the


first atomic power station. It is absolutely Welsh. It is the home of the peasant poet Hedd Wyn who lost his life in the first great war. As a Scotsman and as a Gaelic scholar, you may be interested to know, Mr. Speaker, that I bought recently a statue of Robbie Burns. I wish I could put beside it a statue of our peasant poet Hedd Wyn. If you will allow me, Mr. Speaker, I will quote just four lines of his epitaph which he composed before he was killed in the war:
Ei a berth nid â heibio—a'i wyneb
Annwyl nid a'n ango.
Er i'r Almaen ystaenio
Ei dwrn dur yn ei waed o.
I shall help the Official Reporters with that, Mr. Speaker.
We were told definitely last summer that the Trawsfwydd Military Camp, which had been established for the last 50 years and where all the people of Trawsfwydd found employment, was to be closed, and closed for good. Imagine the feelings of the people there as there was no hope of any alternative employment when that announcement was made. Last August another announcement was made that it was intended to build this atomic power station there. Hon. Members should have seen the joy of the people when they realised that. They believe that in the very near future work will commence on that atomic power station.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East referred to the fact that this area is in the Snowdonia National Park. It is in the most beautiful county in the whole of Britain and I have the honour to represent it. I assure the House that the Secretary of the Snowdonia National Park Committee, Mr. Dafydd Jones-Williams, clerk of Merioneth County Council, with Mr. Tuck, the town and country planning officer, have worked hard to have this power station established at Trawsfwydd. I can assure the Minister that there is no objection in Merioneth to this atomic power station being established. On the contrary, it will be welcomed by all classes. I am hoping that this debate will not have the slightest adverse effect on the inquiry—a formal one I hope—to be held in the near future at Trawsfwydd. A local farmer who will lose his farm was

asked how he felt about it and he replied, "How can I feel about it when I appreciate that if this does not come to Trawsfwydd all my neighbours will be unemployed and without hope of any other employment?"

7.5 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. David Renton): The hon. Members for Merioneth (Mr. T. W. Jones) and Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) referred to the project of an atomic power station in Merioneth. I hope they will forgive me not answering what they have said about that project because my noble Friend has decided to have an inquiry—at which, incidentally, no objectors will be silenced. As the matter is sub judice it would be improper for me to comment on it now. I was glad, however, to hear the hon. Member for Merioneth tell us how we could preserve the Welsh way of life by nuclear methods. I cannot reply to all his comments as they were not all in English.
I have very much sympathy for the views expressed by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East. He expressed fear that all the developments now taking place and likely to take place in future will lead in some years—no one can say how long—to the most terrible desecration of our heritage of natural beauty. He pointed out that under our present procedures a case can be made for each individual project, but nevertheless in the process the cumulative effect of each of those projects would lead to the result he mentioned and we should find further means than we have to avoid that.
I do not think it is widely understood how very thorough, careful and, in the circumstances, effective are the various means Parliament has established for preserving our amenities. I am afraid I shall require some little time to remind the House of them in detail and to say how, so far as my Ministry is concerned, that machinery is working. I hope to persuade the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East that his fears are unjustified and that the present machinery provides, not only for a careful and thorough scrutiny of each project, but also for the conservation of amenity on a national scale.
But—and it is a big but—in considering this subject, we should be deluding ourselves if we did not face the serious conflict and dilemma which arise. We all want to preserve the beauties of the countryside and hate to see them spoiled. I hope also that we all join with the hon. Member for Merioneth in wanting to see the whole of Great Britain progress and have a higher standard of living with an increasing population—it is likely to be an increasing population—and in not wanting to see our country stagnate socially or industrially.
For that reason we must have more power stations, oil refineries, factories, transmission lines, housing estates, hospitals, schools and everything that we mean by civilisation. All that involves development. The extent to which, as the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East suggested, we can use land already developed or gone to waste is very limited. Believe me, the possibilities of such use are not overlooked when searches for sites for various projects are made, but there is a very limited use that can be made of them. Therefore, if we want the progress I have mentioned we cannot avoid going into the countryside. There is the conflict and the dilemma and, as I say, we cannot escape it. Surely we can agree that the great thing is to minimise the desecration of the country-side and to see that when it has to take place it takes place sensibly and considerately.

Mr. Blenkinsop: The hon. and learned Gentleman would agree that we can envisage in some latent future the possibility of some of these developments taking place at least nearer to existing industrial centres?

Mr. Renton: I am going to deal with the point about proximity and remoteness. With those thoughts I have put before the House in mind, may we consider exactly how sites are chosen for atomic power stations? Incidentally, they are not the only power stations but are in the minority of power stations likely to be built over the next few years. There will be altogether about a dozen nuclear power stations started in Great Britain, sites for four of which have already been approved. We must have a sense of proportion in this matter. When the hon. Member asks where the remainder are to be he is merely asking us to say now,

before any public inquiry, where eight power stations are to be established.
Let us see how the sites of the four already established were chosen and how the remaining eight will be chosen. That, incidentally, brings us to the end of 1966 on present plans. The choosing of a site for an atomic power station is a lengthy, elaborate and thorough process, and it is divided into three parts. First, there is the preliminary, general study by the Central Electricity Authority; secondly, the search for a particular site by the Authority; and thirdly, the application to my noble Friend, usually followed by a public inquiry before my noble Friend gives his decision.
Throughout that process, divided into three stages, there are certain limiting factors. The first is a purely economic one—that is to say, the greatest economic benefit to be secured from nuclear stations if they are sited where, owing to transport, the cost of coal is greatest. That means siting the stations away from the coalfields.
The second consideration is safety. That brings us to the question of proximity to or remoteness from built-up areas. When the Government first announced the nuclear programme in 1955, it was decided that the stations should be sited away from centres of population. That was because they contained highly toxic materials. They represented a new development which had not then been tested on a large scale. Calder Hall has since been erected and is working safely and satisfactorily. Although the Windscale accident could not possibly have occurred at Calder Hall or in the type of reactor following Calder Hall on which the new nuclear stations are to be modelled, nevertheless, in spite of that, we are still adhering to the policy of not going near to built-up areas on the broad ground that in matters of this kind it is obviously better to be safe than sorry.
I should say this, because I think it is most material to what has been said by the hon. Members for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East and Merioneth. Even if on safety grounds we felt free to depart from the policy of not going into built-up areas or near to them, there are very few sites available inside or near to built-up areas, and therefore we are thrown back on to the same proposition that we have


to go into the countryside. That is because of the further limiting factors which have to be considered.
The first factor to be considered is this. Nuclear power stations need large quantities of cooling water. I believe they need about 35 million gallons an hour for the type of stations which are now proposed to be erected. Therefore, these stations must be on the coast or on a river estuary. Secondly, the buildings and plant are extremely heavy and the machinery is vibrant. Therefore, they must have solid foundations. Thirdly, the buildings are extensive, and therefore a sufficient acreage is needed, which generally means about 300 acres with the ancillary buildings.
With those limiting factors in mind the Central Electricity Authority—which will become the Central Electricity Generating Board from 1st January next—carry out preliminary general studies in each area in which a station appears to be needed. Those studies involve a thorough consideration of the development plans of the local planning authorities, of the maps of the national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty, both of which must be avoided if possible. That is accepted. Thirdly, the general study involves a geographic study of basic physical features, such as water supplies.
With those general studies in mind, the area research of the part of the country where it is proposed to put a nuclear power station is necessarily narrowed down. The Central Electricity Authority's team of technical experts then proceed to what they call site selection. That is often a lengthy process which takes between three and twelve months. Every possible site in the area of search is considered, and several are sometimes even surveyed before a provisional selection is made. A vast number of people and authorities are consulted. Included among the authorities consulted are the local planning authority, the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, the Ministry of Agriculture, the Home Office, the Air Ministry, the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation, if necessary the Admiralty and the War Office, the National Parks Commission, the Nature Conservancy, and finally, after a site has been provisionally selected, the Royal Fine Art Commission. That is the

answer to the point which the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East made about the architecture of power stations and the question of whether they will look right or wrong on the site on which eventually it is decided they must be put.
The story does not end there, because under Section 37 of the Electricity Act of this year,
In formulating or considering any proposals relating to the functions of the Generating Board or of any of the Area Boards",
including their general programmes of development, the Board itself, the Electricity Council, and my noble Friend, have to have regard
to the desirability of preserving natural beauty, of conserving flora, fauna and geological or physiographical features of special interest, and of protecting buildings and other objects of architectural or historical interest.
Each of them has to take into account any effect which its proposals would have on the natural beauty of the countryside or on any such flora, fauna, features, buildings or objects.
There is a further statutory obligation which they have to bear in mind. It is not until those studies and consultations which I have mentioned are completed that a formal application is made to my noble Friend for his consent under Section 2 of the Electric Lighting Act, 1909. During the consultations, however, and before or after formal application, objections to a particular site are generally raised. If so another site, if available, is considered and, if possible, chosen. But it is very rare indeed to find the site to which nobody has raised one important objection or another. That is one of the difficulties.
When, therefore, a conflict of different public interests arises, it can be resolved only by a Minister or Ministers. That is what in fact happens. When my noble Friend, or the Secretary of State for Scotland, receives an application for his consent, as he has done in four instances so far regarding nuclear power stations, he is obliged under Section 34 of the Electricity Act, or will be from 1st January at any rate, to hold a public inquiry whenever a local planning authority objects and may do so when there is any other objection. In fact, in the four cases so far there were public inquiries into three of them. One of them, Hunterston, came under the Secretary of State for Scotland.
May I mention the part of the local authority in this matter, because it is very important? They have specific statutory duties under the planning Acts to preserve amenities and to adhere in general to their development plans. They, of course, consider power stations with the same thoroughness as they consider other proposals, but the difference is that instead of making the decision themselves they submit their views to my noble Friend. When a public inquiry is held my noble Friend receives full and expert advice from his Ministry's inspector, who sometimes sits with an inspector of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. At Trawsfynydd there will be inspectors from both Departments.
The general problem raised by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East has been examined by expert independent committees in the past, such as the Scott Committee and the Hobhouse Committee, and their recommendations are in the main embodied in legislation under which these various procedures, which I am trying to describe in detail, are carried out.
The aim is to provide a flexible system of planning. It is not as easy as the hon. Member suggests to give the picture as a whole for the future; certainly that is not possible for the rest of time and it is difficult even for a limited number of years. The best answer I can give him is that there is the duty placed on each planning authority to formulate a county development plan. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government has certain statutory duties in respect of development plans, and of necessity those development plans have to be modified from time to time.
Before my noble Friend gives his decision on each application he consults my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government and such other of his colleagues as are concerned. My noble Friend can be questioned in Parliament about his decisions and his representative in the House of Commons can be questioned here, and, on the doctrine of collective responsibility, the decision is the decision of the Government. In the Cabinet is that member of the Government, the Minister of Housing and Local Government, who has the overall responsibility for preserving amenities under the Planning Acts. It would be

wrong for me to trespass too far on the domain of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, but I can say that his Ministry provides information, maps and detailed plans which is all part of the machinery for ensuring that the beauties of our countryside are not desecrated to any avoidable extent.
I regret that I have spoken for a long time, but it is a very big and important subject. The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East suggested that there should be a central consultative committee of amenity associations.

Mr. Blenkinsop: An ad hoc committee.

Mr. Renton: I am not sure that even now I fully understand the hon. Member. We have ad hoc inquiries for each project, and when these are held publicly they give the public a feeling that they are able to make their representations of all kinds. Almost anyone can get up at these inquiries and make representations. I thought the hon. Member said there should be a committee to advise my noble Friend on amenities in connection with the nuclear power station programme. As I say, my noble Friend has to rely upon the Minister of Housing and Local Government to a great extent for advice about the amenities. He and the various other authorities which I have mentioned are consulted and anyone who makes representations to us has those representations considered. Candidly, I think we should get the wires a little crossed if we introduced yet another procedure into the somewhat complex procedure which I have described.

Mr. G. Roberts: The inter-Departmental consultation and check which the hon. and learned Member has fully and clearly outlined, and which meets with my complete approval, works reasonably well. Would it not be helpful if from the very start or the inception of any scheme, when the Ministry of Power begin to think about a provisional site, the National Parks Commission, which I suggest is the consultative body within the meaning of what my hon. Friend said, should be called in to consultation and should be continuously kept in consultation throughout? I know that the Central Electricity Authority is anxious to do that and in fact is impressively trying to co-operate in that way. Would not that


support and supplement the inter-Departmental consultation which the hon. and learned Member has mentioned?

Mr. Renton: If the hon. Member leaves out the word "continuous" and inserts the word "frequent", then that already happens. As I explained, at the very earliest stage, the preliminary stage of general study in an area, the maps and information of the National Parks Commission are considered. When it reaches the point of provisional site selection, the officials of the Commission are specifically consulted if a site is in or near a national park or in an area of outstanding natural beauty. The National Parks Commission, as I understand it has done in the case of Trawsfynydd, has the right to make a formal objection, and when it does so a public inquiry is held. The Commission will no doubt deploy its objections at the Trawsfynydd inquiry, for example. That is a further opportunity of consultation. It is no less consultation because the views are expressed and challenged at a public inquiry.
There is a further channel between my noble Friend and the National Parks Commission, and that is through the Minister of Housing and Local Government, who is the Minister responsible for sponsoring the National Parks Commission. I think the point made by the hon. Member is fully met.
I am glad that this matter has been raised, and if I can be of any help in elucidating these procedures for the benefit of the hon. Member or anyone else, I shall be only too glad to do so, because I think it is most important that there should be the fullest public understanding of what is a very careful and thorough attempt within the statutory procedures to see that we preserve the amenities of the countryside while ensuring the progressive development of our country.

STREET LIGHTING

7.28 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Moyle: The subject on which I want to make a few observations this evening is that of street lighting, and in using the words "street lighting" I include the whole of the lighting of our traffic routes. I want to draw the Joint Parliamentary Secretary's attention not only to the lack of uniformity in our lighting installations throughout the country but also to the deplorable lack of tidy administration and organisation in the lighting authorities. More particularly, I want to emphasise the lack of the finance which is so necessary to carry out the lighting of our roads. Further, I want to draw the Ministry's attention to the growing recognition by the experts of the fact that the lack of uniform and continuous lighting along our main roads is one of the major causes of road accidents.
I know that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary and the Ministry are aware of the importance of this subject, but I cannot understand the lack of progress which there has been in face of the amazing technical progress in lighting. I do not know why the community has not had transferred to it for its benefit the results of the technical progress which has been made, particularly in recent years. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give some reassuring information that will encourage local authorities and give heart to road users—not only motorists, but cyclists and pedestrians, also.
It is astonishing that in England and Wales there are no fewer than 3,200 different lighting authorities. If, in addition, the parish councils—the whole 5,000 of them in England and Wales—were to take the Minister of Housing and Local Government at his word of independence for local authorities which he expressed frequently in the recent debate on the Local Government Bill, and decided to exercise their lighting powers—they can, if they wish, become the lighting authorities for their own areas—there would be more than 8,000 different lighting authorities. One has only to reflect upon these naked facts to understand what an astonishing mess there would be.
There is no legal obligation upon any of those authorities to consult or to act as good neighbours. Where good neighbourliness exists in the lighting of urban areas and main roads, it is entirely voluntary. In the absence of it, each authority goes its own way.
My constituency is contiguous to Smethwick. Smethwick is a county borough in Stafford. Within a radius of 12 miles of Smethwick, there are no fewer than 86 different lighting authorities, plus four county councils. It is true that the county councils, although not lighting authorities, are empowered to make grants towards the lighting within their own county area for schemes which are approved, but the fact is that county councils never do this—at least, I have not heard that they do. This power is not used and is simply a dead letter.
Speeding through the night, as I have often done by car, along the main trunk road known as the Birmingham—Wolverhampton New Road, one is met by highly variegated lighting. As the Birmingham Post said the other day, when aptly describing experience of the motorists along that road,
Motorists who have to pass from the amber flood of sodium flare lighting into the glare of the mercury vapour system and then perhaps into the comparative darkness of an area equipped with insufficient of the ordinary electric lights, all sometimes along the same stretch of road, know only too well how great a strain it is to drive at night in this country.
What is typical of that famous trunk road between Birmingham and Wolverhampton is typical of the country as a whole.
To encourage the Parliamentary Secretary, I will, however, say that recently we have had some new lighting installations along the London to Dover road, which I often use on my way home from the House. There is a new beacon light overlooking the new roundabout at Faring-ham, Kent. I hope that this pilot scheme will be developed throughout the country. It is a great boon and has been a factor in reducing accidents in that area.
With a view to getting rid of the chaos in the administration and organisation of road lighting, I make this suggestion to the Parliamentary Secretary, which, I think, could be adopted without incurring the need for legislation. Why not take the initiative and seek to establish joint standing committees of neighbouring local

authorities, particularly in the conurbation areas, so that their representatives could meet and discuss lighting as a common interest and report back to their respective authorities for the purpose of securing the widest possible uniformity in new lighting installations?
That would not in any way interfere with the existing powers and responsibilities of local authorities. It is a well-established practice in other directions and I cannot understand why the Minister has not shown a greater readiness to try to secure, in co-operation with local authorities, such a system of joint standing committees concerned with road lighting.
The other matter to which I wish to refer is the question of grants. In 1955 and 1956, I understand, the total amount spent by local authorities on lighting was about f12 million a year, whereas the total contribution from the Ministry of Transport via the Treasury was not more than £133,000. That is an astonishing situation. Local authorities are quite right in saying that it is utterly unreasonable that their ratepayers should be saddled with the cost of lighting installations, which are part of a national service and should be grant aided as well as rate-borne.
This is a matter which should receive the serious consideration of the Ministry of Transport. In the case, for example, of lighting installations approved by the Minister—that is, lighting which conforms with the practice recognised by the Departmental experts—why not rank them as part of road improvement schemes so that they qualify for the appropriate grant as if they were road improvement schemes?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): I do not wish unnecessarily to interrupt the hon. Member's interesting speech, but I must make the point that to do as he suggests would require legislation. My right hon. Friend has no power to make grants for lighting purposes except for trunk roads. His power to grant aid for classified roads is limited only to road building.

Mr. Moyle: I accept that. I was not aware of that limitation. I thought that


it would have been possible without legislation. May I say, however, to the Parliamentary Secretary that there is no reason at all why the lighting installations on trunk roads should not rank for 100 per cent. grant as is the case with road improvements. In view of what the Minister has said, with which I take it you agree, Mr. Speaker, otherwise you would have dissented, may I say, on the question of grant, without in any way incurring the possibility of being out of order, that there is a very close link between the standard of lighting on our roads and the rate of road accidents.
I want to draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary and his right hon. Friend to the excellent paper which was recently delivered to the Institute of Highway Engineers by Mr. Granville Berry, the Coventry city engineer and surveyor. In this paper, which was delivered on Friday, 1st November to the Institute of Highway Engineers, he analysed the investigations of the Road Laboratory Research Committee. It is stated that, as a result of the installation of lighting standards that were adequate to the needs on eight main trunk roads within the County of London, there was a reduction of between 20 per cent. and 30 per cent. in the road accident rate.
I am advised that Northampton borough, which was the first authority to institute a complete scheme of fluorescent lighting in its area, achieved a reduction in road accidents by 30 per cent. compared with those before the installations were made. In the United States, 14 States claim—this is in the paper—that, as a result of improved lighting along their main roads, the accident rate was reduced by 60 per cent. A similar reduction has taken place on the main trunk roads in Paris. These are the results of the investigations of the Road Laboratory Research Committee.
The Committee also makes the very interesting analysis which one might regard as the economics of lighting, that it estimates that in one year the cost of road accidents to the nation is about £170 million and that the cost of a road fatality is about £500. If, for example, we had adequate lighting installations along our main roads, within the urban areas alone the estimated cost would be not more

than £5 million a year and the saving resulting from the reduction of road accidents would more than cover the cost of such lighting installations along our main traffic roads.
May I say to the Parliamentary Secretary that I hope, first, that something will be done to try to import some order of administration and organisation into the provision of adequate lighting, secondly, that something will be done to co-ordinate the activities of the local authorities through the medium of a joint standing committee and, thirdly, that something will be done about the financial aspect of the matter.
I cannot imagine a greater opportunity of proving beyond any doubt the sincerity of the Minister of Transport, when he tells the House how deeply he deplores the increasing rate of road accidents in this country, then by his recognition of these needed reforms. If he embraces these proposals to seek to secure uniform standards of lighting along our main roads and continuous lighting during the night, which would be of great benefit to all, particularly those heavy vehicle drivers who use the roads much more frequently now than in other days, it would be gratefully received by motorists, cyclists and every pedestrian, young and old, in the land.

7.46 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Moyle) on raising this issue and also on the very skilful way in which for a long time he skated on thin ice. So dexterous a performance hardly merited the way the Parliamentary Secretary in the end cracked the ice from beneath his feet.
This is a very important matter. I should like to know how far experiments are now being carried on. During the six years that I was chairman of the London and Home Counties Joint Electricity Authority, I had many consultations with the General Electric Company, which was prepared, when one was faced with a scheme for lighting a road, to have small models made of the roads, with the curves and gradients showing, and then to arrange a model lighting set on it, so that one could see exactly the effect that would result from the adoption of a lighting scheme and where on curves and in


other awkward spots one could get the best effect from the scheme. Are these experiments now being carried on? Have the Government done anything to maintain and encourage them and is there any body of people whose advice is at the disposal of the lighting authorities and highway authorities when these schemes have to be considered?
There are still too many roads on which one finds in what is supposed to be lighted areas pools of darkness which are very baffling indeed both to the motorist and the pedestrian. The General Electric Company would even supply with the model black cats which it placed on spots that were likely to be pools of darkness and it was very interesting to find how easy it was on the model to lose the cat when it moved from a well lighted area into one of these pools of blackness.
The Ministry has a very great responsibility in this matter and I heartily support the suggestion of my hon. Friend that efforts should be made to establish voluntary standing joint committees—much as I dislike the word in its police connotation—to deal with the tracts of road which pass through the areas of a good many local authorities and present great difficulty to the road user, whether motorist, cyclist or pedestrian.
It is not unusual to find roads other than trunk roads—I have no doubt that in his own constituency the Joint Parliamentary Secretary can think of examples—which pass for some distance through the boundaries of parishes. The result is that, in going five or six miles along such a road, one passes in and out of two or three parishes, each with a different policy in regard to lighting. That is the sort of place where co-ordination of the kind suggested by my hon. Friend would be of very considerable benefit.
The avoidable casualties on the roads are so heavy that anything which can be done to make it possible for motorists and pedestrians to avoid difficulty and danger should be done. It is no good trying to apportion the blame between one and the other. An accident occurs. Life is lost. Limbs are damaged. Productive labour is lost because a man or woman who could take an active part in industry is temporarily laid off. The estimates which my hon. Friend gave of the loss we incur through these accidents are probably under-estimates rather than

over-estimates. I hope that the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to tell us tonight that his Ministry is fully alive to the importance of the issues raised and that he and his Department are doing what they can, within the limits imposed upon them by the existing law, to see that a better state of affairs is brought into existence.

7.53 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): I did not intervene in the speech of the hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Moyle) in order to throw him out of his stride; in any event, he rapidly got back into his stride again, on a thicker bit of ice, and managed to make the same point. I intervened only because it would be impossible for me to follow him, for I did not doubt that I should have been quickly pulled up. I appreciate the concluding remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), suggesting that I address myself to the problem within the existing law, although there might be many suggestions which could be made in other circumstances, when tackling the matter in a different way.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen on giving the House an interesting and constructive speech on what is, I entirely agree, a matter of very great national importance. As the right hon. Gentleman rightly said, one does find pools of darkness along the roadway as one drives about the country; they are most disconcerting and undoubtedly, on occasion, lead to greater danger on the road. I do not dispute the general impression that Mr. Granville Berry gave in his very interesting paper to which the hon. Gentleman referred; there is no doubt that conditions would be much improved if we could follow the line which he advocated.
I must now address myself to what we can do within the present limitations. For the information of the hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen, I should like to explain why I was not able to give him a very informative answer to a Question of his about consultations we had had. I feel that it will be of interest to him if I now say that, with the aim of solving or at any rate improving the situation, we have had consultations in recent months


with local authority organisations. Those consultations were, however, directed to a re-allocation of existing grants rather than to any shifting of responsibilities and powers. Those consultations concluded by a conference taken by my right hon. Friend at the beginning of July, but unfortunately there was not a sufficient measure of agreement amongst the various local authority organisations for any action to follow from it. I mention this to show that we share in the hon. Gentleman's concern to do something to improve the situation, and we are only sorry that that proved to be a dead end. We shall try again.
In opening, I should like to say a word about how it is that we should have such an astonishing number of lighting authorities. Of course, as Mr. Granville Berry points out, the history of lighting legislation began in the last century when street lighting was provided not for motor traffic, which did not then exist, but primarily for local purposes, for instance, keeping public order, deterring robbery and assault, and for the convenience of pedestrians to save them from falling into potholes or tumbling over obstacles which might be in the road. It has only been gradually since, I suppose, the end of the First World War that motor traffic has rapidly increased so that on a number of roads, but not by any means on all, through motor traffic and the accompanying road safety considerations have now grown to dominate the purely local factors. There are, however, still a great many roads where local factors continue to matter most, for instance, in rural areas and in most country villages where the volume of motor traffic is too small—I hope it will continue to be too small—and infrequent to justify street lighting for purely traffic purposes.

Mr. Moyle: I have in mind, of course, the classified roads, A, B and C.

Mr. Nugent: Yes, but there still are very many, I am glad to say, in parishes and rural villages where street lighting for traffic purposes would not be justified.
A parish council, when considering street lighting for the convenience of local inhabitants approaching the village centre or the church, weighs these matters very seriously indeed, because the cost falls entirely upon the rates and the

parishioners do not take very easily to an additional burden unless they think it is for their general benefit. There will, I think, continue to be very many parts of the country where local factors remain of paramount interest, although there are of course, some parishes traversed by important Class 1 or Class 2 roads where traffic considerations will predominate.
At the other end of the scale is the trunk road. There, my right hon. Friend has power to make a contribution, and he does make contributions up to 50 per cent. of the cost to the lighting authorities concerned. In between—and this is the real problem—there are very many classified roads in urban and semi-urban areas, such as those which have been referred to by the hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen and the right hon. Member for South Shields, where the problem described undoubtedly exists and is a serious matter. In such areas, the local authorities are the lighting authorities, and they are responsible for 100 per cent. of the cost.
I should add just one more point on local considerations, and that is about the question of amenity. I should think that local authorities would probably wish to continue to have control of this. There are often sharp conflicts of opinion on amenity considerations. The lighting standards which carry modern lanterns are extremely effective in providing a high standard of light, but even the most kindly would not call them things of beauty. When, by chance, they are erected against, perhaps, a background of some Georgian houses on the road frontage they are likely to cause a good deal of dissention among some of the local inhabitants.
We have taken the view that the reconciliation of this issue is essentially a matter for the local people through their elected representatives on the local council. On either side there are strong and good arguments. On the one side is the preservation of the aesthetic beauty of the elevation of, say, the houses. On the other side is the promotion of safer traffic and road safety for pedestrians and so on. Consequently, we have said that this is essentially a matter for the local authorities to decide, but we are always ready to give advice, and very frequently lighting authorities consult us. In respect of trunk roads, where we have a direct


responsibility, we always inform the Royal Fine Art Commission, and if it thinks that important architectural features are involved, it can investigate the matter and offer a view, if it so wishes.
It is understandable that in the light of this history we should have grown up with this immense variability of lighting standards which one sees about the country. I suppose that we should accept that on a country road it is reasonable that one should rely upon one's headlamps. Conversely, one would expect that in urban areas one could rely upon the street lamps, and one would hope that they would be of uniform standards. However, as the hon. Member rightly said, they are very far from it. They vary from good through indifferent to bad.
There is no doubt that when the driver of a vehicle, either a commercial vehicle—as the hon. Member rightly said, many commercial vehicles are driven through the night—or a private car leaves a local authority area where the lighting is to a high modern standard and passes into a local authority area where the lighting is to a lower standard, it is disturbing for the driver. It may even be downright disconcerting, for he has the problem of whether to put on his headlamps.

Mr. Moyle: There are also the varying times of extinguishing the lights.

Mr. Nugent: Yes. It is certainly quite the reverse of being helpful to road safety.
I think I should say that in this picture all is not gloom, because in post-war years local authorities have shown themselves aware of the need to improve their street lighting on their traffic routes, and they have made excellent progress despite the fact that they have not been grant-aided. Table 2 in Mr. Berry's paper gives the trunk road figures, and the hon. Member quoted some figures for the general expenditure. The fact is that the expenditure has been rising rapidly in post-war years, especially in recent years. Local authorities have cleanly shown themselves sensitive to this matter.
The standards of lighting are, I think, fairly satisfactory. I am not able to give the right hon. Gentleman any account of experiments that are being done on the lines he indicated, but it is a point that I will gladly look into, and I will

let him know the answer. We are, of course, guided by the British Standards Institution's codes of practice, and we are also assisted by the Association of Public Lighting Engineers. The codes of practice now established, especially the latest standards, give a very satisfactory result indeed in respect of the height of the lamp, in the system of cut-off to prevent glare, and in the intensity of the lamp. It is now possible to reduce the lurid hues of blue and yellow which make everyone such a curious colour, even more than the lights in this Chamber do. The lamps are gradually becoming whiter, which is important, especially in the shopping areas. Shops look desperate if there is a blue or yellow light on them, and, not unnaturally, the shopkeepers do not think it assists their business.
The standards have improved both technically and in the extent to which they are applied. As the hon. Member rightly said, the engineers are to be congratulated on what they have done. The standards were based on the work of the pre-war departmental committee which reported in 1937, the group A standard being for traffic routes and group B for other routes. I need not go into the details of those standards, for I feel that hon. Members are familiar with them.
In his paper, Mr. Berry dealt with them in a very interesting fashion. A point to which the hon. Member did not refer is, I think, important. It is that in that paper the engineer refers to the comparative capital and running costs of the various lamps. It is interesting and encouraging to see that, despite the very greatly superior lighting standard of modern installations, the running costs are considerably lower than those of the old-fashioned installations because of their heavy consumption and heavy maintenance costs.
This is a point of which local authorities are fully aware, and it explains why they are pressing on to replace their old-fashioned installations as soon as they conveniently can. They are, of course, bound to have regard to the life of existing installations, and that means that in some places we shall have to wait longer than in others for a modern installation. However, it is a matter for great satisfaction that, despite the higher initial


cost, the running costs, including the capital costs, come out at such a competitive and attractive rate.
I hope that eventually these standards will be universal for trunk routes in urban and semi-urban areas, but as I say, this is bound to be a long-term development. I should very much like to accelerate what is happening on the lines that the hon. Member suggested, and I am willing to take two steps to do so. First, I will ask our divisional road engineers, in conjunction with the highway authorities, to make a survey of street lighting on all trunk and classified roads throughout the country. This will be a first step to considering what action should be taken to solve the problem. It will throw up the complete picture. I think we should get that done in the next four to six months. We shall then be very much better placed to decide how we ought to proceed.
In the meantime—I gladly accept the hon. Member's suggestion—I will ask our divisional road engineers to consult lighting authorities which are in large conurbations and adjacent to each other and suggest that they should form some local joint advisory committee to co-ordinate street lighting in the whole area. I think that is a thoroughly helpful suggestion. I shall myself call the first conference in the London area to see whether I can get that degree of co-operation among the authorities in the setting up of such a body. I entirely accept that nothing but good can come from such a suggestion. We may well succeed in getting a measure of co-operation between the authorities which will progressively eliminate the pools of gloom referred to so convincingly by the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member.
I conclude by saying that I welcome the debate. I was about to say that it has thrown light on dark places, and that is very important. All of us drive about the country nowadays and know how disconcerting it is to drive from a well-lit area into a badly-lit area. It is in these semi-illuminated streets on the outskirts of urban areas, and sometimes in the middle of them, where accidents tend to occur—where vehicles are continuing to travel with side lights only, not having turned on their head lamps. Anything we can do to improve that situation we

should certainly do, and the House can be assured that I will do my best to promote that valuable development.

FOUNDRY WORKERS (PNEUMOCONIOSIS)

8.11 p.m.

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: The subject I want to raise does not have very much in common with what we have just been discussing, but it does have this much in common with it in that it is concerned with safety and, indeed, with life and death.
I am grateful to the hon. Member the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour for coming along. The subject which I want to discuss covers the interests of his Ministry and also those of the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance. I am told that the hon. Lady the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance was in Scotland until very recently and had intended to come from there to be present for this debate. I take it from her absence that she has decided that since she had the good fortune to be in Scotland, she might as well extend her good fortune and stay there. However, I am sure that she will be interested in what her hon. Friend passes on to her about her aspect of the debate.
I do not want to elaborate the matter at great length. I have geared my speech to fifteen minutes, although, because of the change in time, I need not perhaps be quite as strict as that.
This is a matter which originates in my constituency, although its application is a great deal wider than that. I am concerned about the existence of dust in the atmospheres of foundries and the effects of that on the health of foundry workers. In the past, a foundry worker spending a lifetime in a foundry has been likely to find himself spending a lifetime exposed to dust which in the course of time might affect his lungs and, if he were unfortunate, might well shorten his life considerably.
The industry is, of course, one of a high degree of craftsmanship, but also—and this is one of the things which probably contributes to the incidence of the disease about which I am about to talk—one in which there is a high degree of sheer


hard graft. It is one of those industries in which there is still an enormous amount of sheer back-breaking hard work and I understand that that fact makes the treatment of the dust diseases which arise rather more difficult.
A tremendous amount has been done in recent years, especially since the publication of the Garrett Report. I appreciate, as do all the workers in the industry in my constituency, the amount of improvement which has taken place, an improvement due very largely to cooperation among Her Majesty's Government, through the Factory Inspectorate, the employers and the workers.
The hon. Lady the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance has now entered the Chamber. I have just told her colleague that I thought that since she was in Scotland she might extend her good fortune and stay there, but I see that duty has brought her here and I am very grateful to her for attending.
The Iron Foundries Joint Standing Committee, which was set up some years ago as a consequence of the work of the Garrett Committee, has also done extremely useful work and the first Report which it produced a year ago is part of the data upon which I rely for a good deal of what I have to say. But in spite of all that has been done—and this is the point I want to make—it is still possible for a new official appointed to one of the unions to be able to come along to me and to say that after a few months in his job he is absolutely appalled with the proportion of foundry workers, particularly dressers, who fall victims to pneumoconiosis.
When he gave me some figures—not official statistics—I, too, was appalled. My conversation with him is the genesis of this Adjournment debate. He told me that he had a membership of about 150 dressers of whom 30 had applied for benefit because of pneumoconiosis in the last three or four years. Those figures show that in spite of the work which has been done in foundries, foundry workers, particularly dressers, are still seriously endangered by pneumoconiosis.
I will instance one figure which, though not an official figure, is sound enough, of X-ray examinations undertaken in 1953–54 in selected areas including Falkirk. They were carried out by Dr. Meiklejohn

of Glasgow University who published the results. He said that he had examined 28 dressers and had found 11 to be suffering from pneumoconiosis leaving the possibility that others might contract it later. Those figures suggest how desperately serious the position still is in foundries.
There are two broad lines along which one can try to remedy the situation and one is very much more fundamental than the other. The lesser in importance is that of the workers themselves taking steps to protect themselves against dust in the atmosphere, for instance, by wearing respirators. The problem about that is that although the employers should and do provide respirators, the workers who should wear them do not always do so. There is a still serious problem for the workers to solve on the workshop floor.
In that respect, there is a tremendous amount to be done, but it is in the other and more fundamental matter that the more important improvement must be made. The essential is not so much the taking of precautions by the individual workers, but a change in processes in such a way that dust is not freed into the atmosphere. The ultimate ideal would be a process of iron founding which would not permit the emission of dust into the atmosphere. That is the ideal which we cannot achieve right away, but we can achieve a part of it, with modern knowledge and modern techniques.
In the old-established floor moulding, it is a good deal more difficult, but with mechanised moulding I should have thought, on the face of it, that there was much more chance of completely eliminating the emission of dust. That is not the case in spite of the nature of mechanised foundries and at least at two key points, knock out and sand reconditioning, there is still a good deal of what might be called slack which can be taken up in efforts to control the emission of dust.
That leads me to the general suggestion that in all these processes the tools which are used should be fitted with some kind of dust extractor or exhaust. That is common place in the case of a great many modern tools; they are made in such a way that the dust is contained. In the business of dressing, for instance, if the rumbling barrel is efficient it does


not usually emit dust into the atmosphere. Hand wire brushes, however, which are used to a considerable extent in my constituency, could have precautionary apparatus fixed to them, but they do not. Generally speaking, a great deal more could be done in that respect in most foundry work, particularly fettling.
I should like to know whether, when such devices become available, it is possible to make their use compulsory. Compulsion is something which we do not like to introduce if things can be done by co-operation. An enormous amount has been done by co-operation, but much ground remains to be covered. When we suggest compulsion in matters of that sort the foundry employers are apt to say, "We have spent a tremendous amount in recent years"—as they have—"and this would cost a great deal more money." But what is involved in the long run is life and death—and not always in such a very long run.
There is at least a case for saying that whenever the devices are available they should be fitted. A case was recently made by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) for providing tax incentives when such devices are used—not penalising the failure to use them, but rewarding their actual use. My own constituency is a fairly happy one in this respect, but in some parts of the country slum foundries exist and there we do not get co-operative employers. The case for further compulsion is worth considering, although I am not standing here as a full-blooded advocate of it. The hon. Member should consider whether it would help. If it would save a good deal of the serious diseases which are contracted and of the early deaths which result there is a case for it.
There are one or two other suggestions that I should like to make, and which I shall make very generally because my time is slipping away. There is a need to improve working conditions generally. Co-operation in the last few years has resulted in improved conditions, and the introduction of the 1953 Regulations has helped, but among the foundry workers in my constituency there is a continual suggestion that the Regulations are not stiff enough, and that they are not being enforced strictly enough. I do not

suppose that many industries owe more to the Factory Inspectorate than does the foundry industry. The Inspectorate has done an enormous amount of good, but it can probably do still more to enforce the necessary standards.
Since pneumoconiosis takes about five or six years to develop normally it should be possible to watch young workers coming into the industry and try to make sure that none of them falls victim to it. It should be possible to give them a medical examination for this disease periodically and, when there is the slightest sign of their falling victims to any dust disease, to take the necessary steps, even if it means asking them to move to another industry. The hon. Member might consider that point and let me know what he has to say about it.
In the case of adult workers the recent X-ray survey has shown the value of carrying out rather more X-ray examinations. Periodical X-ray examinations would be extremely useful, but the question arises whether this form of examination has not been relied upon too much in the past for diagnosis. It would be useful to workers in the foundry industry to know more about this, if the Minister has any information. I understand that there has been a certain amount of criticism of the X-ray examination, as giving not quite so much information as people have been inclined to believe. I should also like him to state what he thinks of the possibility of setting up in iron foundry centres pneumoconiosis clinics where provision might be made for heading off the onset of the disease. These, put very quickly, are the points upon which I should like the hon. Member to express an opinion.
I should now like to turn to the hon. Lady's side of the matter—the question of what happens after a man has got pneumoconiosis, or suspects that he has it. First, let us leave out of account the man who, thinking he has the disease, finds that upon diagnosis he does have it, and is then given benefit. Let us consider the other man—and there are a great many in my constituency—who thinks that he has pneumoconiosis; goes to his doctor; is told by the doctor that he has it; is sent to the infirmary; is told by the infirmary that he has it, and is then sent to the pneumoconiosis medical panel, which tells him that he is not suffering


from it. He then appeals to the medical appeal tribunal, and the tribunal says that he has not got pneumoconiosis.
That is all right if the man afterwards lives a happy and a healthy life; but he does not usually do so. Although such a man has been told that he has not got pneumoconiosis he very often finds himself going through the same stages as he would if he had got it. In the long run the diagnosis may be exactly and strictly correct, but in a great many cases the man has some lung condition which has arisen because of his work. In the purely technical sense it may not be pneumoconiosis.
I want to know whether it is possible for such cases to be followed up. After a few years it should be possible to tell whether the original diagnosis or the tribunal's diagnosis was right. It should be possible, following up these cases, to know whether the present procedure is sufficiently effective and whether it covers the sort of cases that arise.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch) had criticisms to make during the debate last Monday. He speaks with greater knowledge than I on the subject of procedure. I think his criticisms are right, and also that there exists something which is perhaps even broader than the matters he criticised and which should be dealt with. I should like to think that not merely sufferers from the exact described disease should obtain benefit, but that anyone who is suffering severely from exposure to dust in foundries should do so, whatever may be the exact description of his medical condition.
The question of benefit is secondary to that of prevention, but it is important. The onset of this disease is long and slow. A man has usually worked a great many years of his life before he has pneumoconiosis, and it is not easy for him to change his mode of life. The only thing which can give him comfort is benefit, so that benefit is important, even though it is not so important as actual prevention.
I wish to emphasise the seriousness of this matter from both points of view. I gave the hon. Gentleman some figures at the start of my speech and I will conclude with a remark which I hear fairly frequently. It is a common saying among those who work in foundries that to go into that kind of work "takes ten years

off your life". That may be an exaggeration; on the other hand it may not. If we take the average life of a dresser, I do not think there is any reason to believe, on the face of it, that it is an exaggeration. Whether there is any truth in it or not, it is something which is widely believed. That shows the seriousness of the matter, and if there is truth in that belief there is cause not merely for a gradual step-by-step improvement, but a serious attack on this disease and on the conditions experienced by those who work in foundries.

8.30 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and National Service (Mr. Robert Carr): I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson) and I am glad that my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Service was present to hear those parts of his speech dealing particularly with insurance matters. I will not attempt to answer those points. I am sure the hon. Member realises that I should do so inadequately. What he desired was that my hon. Friend should hear them and consider them. The main purpose of this debate was to enable the hon. Member to hear the Ministry of Labour view about the control and possible prevention of pneumoconiosis.
I agree that this question is most important. It is a risk in foundries which we must do everything possible to eliminate. The hon. Member has a particular concern and interest because of the amount of foundry work that goes on in his constituency. I share that interest for a different reason. I have had some experience of working in a foundry, not, let me hasten to add, an iron foundry, but an aluminium foundry, where conditions are somewhat easier. However, it gives one some appreciation of the problems involved.
I was glad to hear the hon. Member say that work in an iron foundry is one of the few occupations where there is "hard graft." I agree with him. Unless one has worked in a foundry one does not know what hard work is. The hon. Member said that many people believed that working in a foundry particularly in the dressers' shop, cut ten years from


one's life. There is, of course, no statistical evidence to support such a statement. Indeed, the statistical records are not sufficient to provide a picture of the extent of the pneumoconiosis risk in foundries. But, figures apart, there is a problem here and I know that there exists a fear, about which we should not be complacent.
We have been, and are still, attacking this problem and we shall go on doing so in close co-operation with both sides of industry. That co-operation is important and I was glad to hear the hon. Member refer to the effects of existing co-operation. I do not want to belittle the need for a legislative background in some of the work, but the more I see of it the more I am convinced that real progress is usually made by co-operation. The legislation should be there and should be enforced, but real, positive progress comes from developing an atmosphere of consultation and co-operation within the industry, and between the industry and inspectors from my Department and other officials.
There is certainly too much dust in foundries, and it is our intention to do everything that is practicable to reduce and control it. However, we must not under-estimate—and the hon. Member himself was very fair in referring to this—what has already been done, not only since the Iron and Steel Foundries Regulations came into force, but for many years previously, and particularly since the publication of the Garrett Report. While we must certainly not be complacent, or pretend that there is no significant risk, we ought also not to speak of the subject in a way which will frighten people from entering the industry, and I appreciate the most responsible way in which the hon. Member raised this subject.
Of course, there is scope for further advance, and I hope we are making it, but already if employers and individual workers—the two together—take proper care to make use of the existing techniques and appliances, there is no reason to fear taking employment in a foundry. I want to say that, because this is a craft trade of immense importance to the economy of this country, and in the next few years, with the great growth of young people leaving our schools and needing

employment, it is important that the foundries should get their fair share of these young people. Because it is a craft trade, it is work which offers real satisfaction to those who take part in it.
Therefore, on the one hand, we want to assure entrants and would-be entrants into the industry that we are doing everything we can to reduce the risk the whole time, and, on the other, we also want to say to them that, provided reasonable care is taken in the light of modern knowledge, both by employers and individual workers, there need be no fear about going into this industry. In saying that, I do not think that it is being complacent; I certainly do not want to belittle what the hon. Member said about the incidence of the disease which has come to his notice. Of course, this is a slow-developing disease, as the hon. Member knows, and the changes and improvements which have been made are not yet fully apparent. They should be shown in a number of years to come, in what we hope will be a decrease in the number of cases a few years hence.
I should like to say something generally about the question of prevention, which is the special responsibility of my Ministry. Since the war, a considerable amount of new legislation dealing with this matter has been brought into force. The occupiers of foundries are now under an obligation to maintain appropriate standards of cleanliness in foundries, and that alone is an extremely important matter. The use of sand has been prohibited in the blasting of castings and other articles, and the use of free silica has been prohibited in parting powders.
The Iron and Steel Foundries Regulations, 1953, represented the first attempt to deal with these foundries, as such, by special regulations, and certain of the provisions relating to dust, represented a very considerable step forward: in particular, the requirements about the separation of processes and the use of protective equipment.
Among other protective equipment, it is obligatory under the Regulations for the occupier to supply approved respirators in certain conditions, and it is also obligatory on the employed person to make full and proper use of the equipment and to report without any delay the loss of, or defects in, that equipment. I think that that answers one of the points which the


hon. Gentleman made. There is an obligation here to provide protective equipment on the employer, and an obligation on the worker to use it and to report less or defects without delay; and it is most important that both these obligations should be carried out.
I know from an experience of some years as a foreman in a foundry that it is not always easy to get workers to use the equipment that is provided. I know from my experience of the foundry in which I worked that there seemed to be great difficulty in getting people consistently to use goggles or respirators or other special clothing which was properly provided for them. Further, in our legislative framework, there is special provision against young persons being employed in blasting processes, or being near one unless effectively protected from dust.
It is too soon to say what the effect of these requirements will be. The disease is slow to develop, but it is definitely the view of the Factory Inspectorate that the regulations, taken together, are having a real effect upon working conditions in iron foundries.

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: One point on the general question I did not bring out when I was speaking. There has been a great deal of improvement and there probably will be further improvement because some of the regulations will take effect later. One of the things to notice is that improvement is uneven. Some firms, as the recent X-ray survey shows, are bad firms, while others are better. One of the problems is to make sure that when progress takes place it happens everywhere and that the bad firms are brought up with the good firms.

Mr. Carr: That is absolutely true throughout industry and not only throughout the foundry industry, and whether in the conduct of industrial relations, safety, welfare, etc. If only we could get the average up to the level of the good there would not be much further work to do. The problem is how to do it to a large extent.
Perhaps, since the hon. Gentleman has intervened on that point, I might move straight to a question which I was going to deal with later. He suggested that the regulations were not stiff enough. I do not want to be dogmatic, but I must point

out that the Regulations have been fully operative only since January, 1956, barely two years and that before we begin to talk about the need for new Regulations—unless any unperceived gap appears—we ought to get these Regulations applied and general progress made. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman realises that the making of Regulations is not by any means simple. They take a great deal of thought and research, and very often the very people—I am not thinking only of our factory inspectors—who would be engaged on them can be doing more immediate practical work by getting the state of the existing knowledge applied to the Regulations. There is always a difficult balance to strike in deciding when it is time to go ahead and to try to improve the legislative framework. Much of the work has to be done in the factory by enlightened and knowledgeable people. One's time can be consumed to a very large extent in making mere reports and Regulations.
Tied up with the stiffness of the Regulations is the question whether the Factory Inspectorate is firm enough in enforcing the existing law. If the hon. Member ever has evidence that they are not I should be glad to inquire into the case, but, generally speaking, I do not think that it is so. I suppose he is suggesting that the Inspectorate is too reluctant to prosecute when he suggests that it is not firm enough in enforcing the law. I can assure him that where we become convinced that the occupier is failing to do what is reasonably practicable in the light of modern developments, the policy is to prosecute.
Having said that, I stress again the importance that we attach to co-operation, in securing improvements in working conditions in industry. The Iron Foundries Joint Standing Committee, which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, is an admirable example of it. Our object is to make progress. Particularly in view of the fact that the Iron and Steel Foundry Regulations have been fully in force for less than two years, however, we believe that at this point of time our most potent methods of achieving that progress are by consultation, advice and persuasion. I assure the hon. Member that the Department and its Inspectorate are wholehearted in their attempts to this end.
Having said something about the general position and dealt with the strength of the present law and its importance, I turn to some of the other points raised by the hon. Member and also to the work which is in hand for future progress. First, I wish to say a word about the fundamental investigations which have been going on over a long period into the incidence of this disease. We have made repeated medical examinations in foundries and our knowledge is continually expanding.
As the hon. Member knows, whenever appropriate, the results are published. The particular value of these studies from our point of view at the Ministry of Labour is the way in which they relate the hazard to particular processes so that we find which are the dangerous processes and where remedial or preventive measures are most urgent. The work of our medical inspectorate in this matter has been of great practical value and constitutes a contribution widely recognised, not only in this country but well beyond it. We are fortunate in having eminent workers in this field.
I certainly agree with the hon. Member that the first objective should be to reduce and control the dust. Although important, the provision of effective protection for the worker and ensuring that everything possible is done to make the worker use the equipment provided is only the second line of defence. The hon. Member said that there should be effective exhaust ventilation for dust control on all processes, including particularly those of the dressing shop or "fettling shop", as it is called, and that fettling tools, whether fixed or portable, power driven or hand-operated, like the brushes he mentioned, should be properly protected. Where reasonably practicable devices already exist, their use is definitely compulsory under the existing Regulations. As new devices are de-developed and become practicable, they also become obligatory under the existing Regulations and there is no need for new Regulations to make them so.
The obvious point of doubt is sometimes at what stage the new development has become reasonably practicable and, therefore, obligatory. I agree with the hon. Member that that is a matter on which sometimes there are bound to be

differences of opinion. There is also the question, when a basic piece of equipment or device has been developed, of the time and trouble which need to be taken in tailoring it to meet the needs of different types of production. There is no doubt that formidable problems still exist in the development of dust control devices. I could give many examples, and the Report on Conditions in Iron Foundries by the Joint Standing Committee is at once an indication of the complexity of these problems and of the directions in which we are seeking remedies for them. For example, at the moment it has under consideration research in a large number of fields. To mention a few, there are: the application of local exhaust ventilation for all dressing tools except the cut-off wheel; exhaust systems for dust removal at fettling wheels on stand grinders; exhaust systems for dust extraction at knock-out; and the design of an exhaust system for the removal of dust generated by knock-out in pit moulding, where weight and design make the separation process of knock-out physically impossible.
This research is in different stages. In some cases, it is already bearing fruit and equipment is becoming available. In other cases, several years of research, although elucidating fundamental issues, have not produced concrete solutions and there is still a lot to be done. It is fair to say that research and development work has been and is being done by a number of organisations and bodies and a great deal by the industry itself, which I think, is a particularly encouraging sign.
Another point that the hon. Member made was that pneumoconiosis clinics should be established in foundry areas. Throughout the country there are facilities for the diagnosis and treatment of chest diseases. I am not aware of any particular difficulty having been experienced in foundry areas. The point I am making is that it is the facilities for chest examination which I believe to be important and I believe these exist. Provided those facilities exist, I doubt whether there is much cause for special pneumoconiosis clinics. If the hon. Member has any particular area in mind where the general facilities for chest examination which I


have mentioned are proving difficult, I would certainly like to look into the matter and to take it up.

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: I understand that the diagnosis of pneumoconiosis is extremely difficult. Therefore, in an ordinary clinic which has not a special bent towards that kind of work it might not prove a very easy task.

Mr. Carr: I will certainly look into that matter and consider it. If I think that there is anything in it, I will get in touch with the hon. Member.
The hon. Member also talked about the need for medical examinations. I know of a number of foundry areas where works doctors provide services of that kind. They make regular medical examinations. I should like to see that practice extended. Compulsory medical examination, however, raises a much wider question, including consideration of a much larger field of workers at risk in many occupations. That is altogether beyond the scope of a short Adjournment debate such as this.
The hon. Member mentioned young workers. Of course, in this industry, as in every other industry, they are examined not only on entry, but once a year for the first few years after they come in up to the age of 18.
The hon. Member also mentioned the possibility of financial assistance being given by the Government to employers to help them in installing machinery to cut down dust. It seems to me that any such provision would be a complete reversal of existing policy and, clearly, would have far-reaching consequences.
I do not think that it is a matter that can be considered in isolation as affecting work in foundries. The proposal is contrary to the principles of the Factories Acts. There is a duty to people to take precautions. They ought not to be given incentives to do what is their duty. In so far as they affect taxation, there are very serious complications and it would be impossible for me, on behalf of the Government, to accept any commitment like that.
This is a most important, very wide and complicated subject, as the hon. Member said. The diagnosis problems alone are serious. I assure him that I will look further into the points he has raised. I

can also assure him that we at the Ministry treat this subject seriously and admit that there is a problem. We are not complacent about it and we intend to go on trying to improve the progress which we are all certain has been made in the last few years.

Mr. Arthur Tiley: May I ask my hon. Friend a question? Is there not consultation with the insurance companies about this matter? They are carrying out such huge research that, of all people, they know where the danger spots are from the complaints which arise.

Mr. Carr: I hesitate to say "Yes" to that, because I do not know categorically the answer. However, in all the work we do in connection with factory and industrial diseases, we receive co-operation from a great range of bodies and I should be surprised if any organisation carrying out extensive work is not in touch with us. But I will make sure that that is so.

BUS SHELTER, BYRAM-CUM-SUTTON

8.55 p.m.

Mr. George Jeger: When I was in my constituency last weekend I asked my constituents who are concerned with this matter which they would rather I did—endeavour to catch Mr. Speaker's eye in the grand foreign affairs debate tomorrow or raise the question of their bus shelter, which is only a local problem. They told me that any fool can speak on foreign affairs and no doubt several would, but that if I did not speak about their local bus shelter, then nobody else would. I therefore prefer to take my chance today and to raise the problem of the people who live in the village of Byram-cum-Sutton and who wish to have a bus shelter at the bus stop on the corner of the Great North Road and Sutton Lane, which is the road leading off the Great North Road into their housing estate.
I do not think this is an unreasonable request on their part, and certainly they do not think it is unreasonable, but since 1952 the parish council has been fighting for this bus shelter, engaged, as it says, in an exercise of frustration and disappointment. I do not have to impress upon the Joint Parliamentary Secretary


to the Ministry of Transport the importance of transport in rural areas. He knows that far better than I do, because he has been engaged practically in agriculture and before his present position he was in the Ministry of Agriculture.
What perhaps I have to impress upon him is the fact that the Great North Road, in spite of its grandiose title, is very often a rural road running through rural areas and that transport along the Great North Road to and from the villages situated on either side of it is a question of rural and not national transport.
People living in those parishes rely on buses. They have to stand waiting for those buses. In the rural areas, unlike the city areas, buses run infrequently and the people have to be there well in advance to catch the buses. Standing in the open, exposed to the wind, rain and even worse elements, is not very pleasant. The farther North we go the more unpleasant those elements can be. My contituents on the Great North Road feel that they are entitled to some shelter from those rough elements of wind and weather.
I came into this picture last March. I wrote to the Minister at the request of a deputation from the parish council and, after about seven weeks without a reply, I put a Question on the Order Paper. That, quite peculiarly, provoked a reply from the Minister—a coincidence, I am sure. The reply was most unsatisfactory. It repeated and supported what the parish council had already been told by the divisional road engineer.
I should like to ask at this point whether the Minister thinks that his province in matters of this kind is just to rubber stamp the views of the divisional road engineer or whether there is any substance in the fact that all these matters have to be referred to the Minister for his approval or otherwise, that he gives personal consideration to them and that he is not there merely to rubber stamp whatever views the divisional road engineer has put forward.
In this case the divisional road engineer delayed and obstructed this proposal for several years, and there is a feeling of resentment in the parish about

it. It is on record that in September, 1956, after a six months' silence, when the parish council ventured to jog him it was admitted that he had mislaid the papers in his office. In November, 1956, after that had been put right, he said that he had found difficulty in following the council's arguments about bus routes and in locating place names. It turned out that he was using an out-of-date ordnance survey map. Eventually, he produced a number of objections to the proposal for this bus shelter.
It is a very old trick and very often it works—but sometimes it does not—that when one is opposed to a proposal, one never says "No," but always says, "I support this in principle" and then puts up alternative ideas, but always ensuring beforehand that the alternatives are unacceptable; otherwise the whole intention would be destroyed. So it was in this case. The divisional road engineer could not do anything but recognise the need for this shelter, but he told my constituents that they simply could not have it where they wanted it—the site was unsafe and it obstructed the view of the road—and he offered them another site.
It is peculiar that for 10 years buses have been stopping at this bus stop which is now considered to be unsafe. Has the Parliamentary Secretary any record of accidents at this bus stop? Why is it suddenly an unsafe bus stop if it has a shelter, whereas it was not unsafe without a shelter? It is peculiar that it was never deemed unsafe until the desire for a shelter was put forward.
If we are discussing road safety at this site, I impress upon the Minister that the rural district council road safety committee is completely in favour of a shelter being erected there. The local road safety people therefore, fully back the demand of the parish council. I have seen the spot several times. I saw it only last weekend. It is a wide corner and there is a wide footpath. There is a telephone kiosk on the footpath where the shelter is required. There are trees and hedges which screen the house behind it.
The site suggested by the divisional road engineer is 35 to 40 yards away downhill to the south. The shelter, if erected there, would overlook the private garden and house of a local resident, who would be put to the trouble and


expense either of raising his wall or planting trees and shrubs to get a little privacy from the bus shelter. In addition, the divisional road engineer suggests that the northbound bus stop on the other side of the road should also be moved 30 to 40 yards to the south down the hill, staggered with the new one which he proposes to put on the other side of the road.
My constituents want to know why these bus stops should be removed a considerable distance away from the parish, almost on the parish boundary. I am sure that I do not have to impress upon the Minister again the importance of people coming home, perhaps from work or from shopping and particularly heavily-laden shoppers, having to get off at a bus stop on a main road and walk 30–40 yards uphill in all sorts of weather before reaching the by-road leading down to their own houses.
The divisional road engineer has, I think, been working to an office formula remote from and without taking any notice whatever of local conditions. He admits at one point that the suggested new bus stop would not suit one bus route to Castleford, but he says that that runs only on Saturday. When does his wife, if he has one, do her main shopping? Does he not know that most working class people do their main shopping on a Saturday? That is the day when they require the assistance of buses to help them get home with their heavy bundles.
The parish council called a parish meeting last week. It was quite well attended and the opinion was unanimously expressed that the parish does not want the bus stop moved, even though the new site would carry with it a shelter. They would rather have no shelter at all than the one offered in the new position and they gave 10 good reasons why the bus shelter should be erected at the place where the bus normally stops now.
All the local authorities and organisations are in favour of keeping the present bus stops and erecting shelters there. I ask the Minister to give full consideration, not to the views of is divisional road engineer whose office is some distance away, but to the opinions of those who have local knowledge and experience. I

do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was in the House last week when we spent two days discussing the new Local Government Bill. Great stress was laid on what I thought was the one reasonable argument in favour of some such Bill for the reform of local government, that argument being that it would give greater freedom to local authorities in the management of their own local affairs. I would ask the hon. Gentleman to give consideration to that point of view and perhaps keep in step with another Department of his own Government in reiterating more freedom for local authorities.
Finally, I would appeal to the hon. Gentleman in accordance with this season of the year. This is the last chance this year that he will have of doing the public a good turn. I would ask him to do this good turn generously and to give generously not to a favoured one or two, but to a collective community. I would ask him to imagine himself over this Christmas holiday driving up the Great North Road in a sleigh, not a car, and having in a sack on his sleigh a very nice new bus shelter as a Christmas present for the people of Bryam-cum-Sutton. If he will do that, I am quite sure that he will earn from them seasonal good wishes, and I will see that he gets them.

9.6 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): I must congratulate the hon. Member for Goole (Mr. Jeger) on the eloquent and moving way in which he opened this subject. I wish that I were able to be more accommodating to him. I hope that my last chance has not gone for the rest of the year of doing a good turn.

Mr. Jeger: A public good turn.

Mr. Nugent: I might even do a public good turn outside the House.
I find myself, however, in a difficulty, which I must explain to the House right away. I have learned that the Traffic Commissioners, who as the House will know act in a completely independent capacity, are proposing to attach a condition to the road service licences for these bus routes which would move the bus stop to the position proposed by the divisional road engineer. That will bring


the whole of this subject, after the proper notices have been made, before the next appropriate sitting oaf the Traffic Commissioners, where, of course, it will be fully argued.
The rural district council has a statuttory right to be there, and, in the circumstances, the Traffic Commissioners will invite the parish councillors to be there as well so that they can put their very strong views about this matter. This will be an independent inquiry into all the facts. More important, if there is an aggrieved party on either side after the Traffic Commissioners' hearing, there is a right of appeal to my right hon. Friend, who will then appoint an independent inspector to hear the appeal. Finally, the report comes to the Minister to reach a final conclusion. Therefore, I feel that it would be wrong of me to go into the whole matter tonight, because it might in future come before my right hon. Friend in his semi-judicial capacity. I confine myself to saying a few words on the general issues.
The hon. Member will know that this issue will now be fully argued in public. The merits on both sides can be fully developed then, and I feel sure that the matter will be settled to the satisfaction of all parties.

Mr. Jeger: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that statement, but could he tell me when it was decided that the matter would take that form? The last letter I had from his right hon. Friend was dated 31st October, and that made no mention of it.

Mr. Nugent: I trust that I shall put myself in a position to answer that question before I conclude my speech; at present, I am not equipped with that knowledge. I imagine that the Traffic Commissioners have decided this in the last two or three weeks, perhaps, but I have not the date in front of me. I suppose they thought that this would be the best way to have full and open consideration of the issues, on which the local people obviously feel very strongly. If I do not deal with the details of the hon. Gentleman's most lucid dissertation on the case, he will understand that that is not because I am not interested in it but because I do not want to prejudice our position for the future.
I will begin by apologising both to the hon. Gentleman and to the parish council for the delays which have occurred in dealing with this case. I read the copy of the "progress report" drawn up by the parish council which was sent to my right hon. Friend, and I thought it a most lucid and interesting document. As I read it, I reflected that the spirit of Hampden still stirred in Yorkshire villages; evidently, they are energetic and very determined people in the village of Byram-cum-Sutton. As a parish councillor myself and chairman of my own parish council for very many years, I can sympathise with the strength of feeling that there is no doubt is in the village, and I congratulate them on the determination with which they have carried on their struggle. Time will show whether it is possible to meet their wishes, but I hope that they will accept my apologies, in so far as delays have been our fault. I am sure they will give credit for what have been genuine attempts by the divisional road engineer to try to find a basis for agreement, and will accept my assurance that neither my right hon. Friend nor I are "rubber stamps" for advice from our officials anywhere. Excellent though that advice usually is, we look at it very carefully, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we listen to other advice as well.
As the hon. Member said, this dispute really is about the bus stop. The bus shelter comes in only because it has to have a site on which to stand. The bus stop is, as he says, at the junction of the Castleford-Sutton road with the Great North Road, and, if I may make a somewhat indirect comment on it, I assume that the divisional road engineer has taken the view that, probably, that was not an ideal position. I suppose that it was considered just acceptable in the past. When the proposal for the bus shelter came along, this raised two further objections; first, that it would make permanent that bus stop which had never, I suppose, been particularly approved of; and secondly, it would to some extent interfere with the sight line.

Mr. Jeger: The hon. Gentleman says that the bus stop was never really approved of. It has a sign "Bus Stop" there, and presumably those signs can be erected only with approval.

Mr. Nugent: I was going to say a word about the arrangements for approving bus stops. I should add that I have not the accident figures for its junction, but I will get them for the hon. Gentleman. I am not sure whether they will add much in a positive way, but I will provide them in any event.
The position about the fixing of bus stops is that they are usually settled upon by informal agreement between the bus operating companies, the local authority and the highway authority. The Traffic Commissioners have power, under the Road Traffic Act, 1930, to attach to road service licences conditions about the siting of bus stops, and it is in accordance with those powers that the Traffic Commissioners have acted here, presumably, to find a means to bring all the conflicting views together and settle the matter in a satisfactory way.
I have explained that there is a right of appeal to my right hon. Friend, and I feel certain that this is the right way of dealing with the matter. I would say straight away that my natural inclination would be to let a parish council put a bus shelter wherever it wanted to. Nine times out of ten it can. But the reason for my right hon. Friend and myself coming in here is that we have a responsibility for traffic flow and road safety on trunk roads, which Parliament has specifically put on us, and we cannot, nor would we wish to, avoid that responsibility. I am sure the hon. Member would not wish us to do so. Therefore, in respect of this road, that responsibility enters into the matter.
Somehow, we have to reconcile the conflicting interests of the local people who wish the bus stop with the shelter, or, indeed, without it, to continue to be where it is, and to decide whether that or whether what we believe to be the interests of traffic flow and traffic safety should prevail.
This is a very important road. As the hon. Member knows, we are having dual carriageways built along almost the whole length from London to Newcastle. That will give very wonderful benefit. I make that point just to indicate how terribly

heavy the traffic is there and how necessary it is for us to do all we can to keep the conditions as safe as we can and the traffic flow as smooth as possible.
I feel certain that the House will recognise our specific responsibility in the matter. I hope that the parishioners of Byram-cum-Sutton will understand that the Minister is not interfering for the sake of interfering, nor is his divisional road engineer, with what the village wants to do. We are taking action because we have a specific responsibility for what happens on the trunk road. These matters will be decided now in open forum, where I hope both sides will finally be satisfied.
I would add that there is another procedure by which the matter could have been settled, and that is by the parish council opting to go to arbitration. The 1953 Act made such provision. I mention it just to complete the picture. The parish council can by mutual consent with the disputing parties, appoint an arbitrator. If no agreement is reached, the arbitrator can, in default, be appointed by no less a person than the President of the Institution of Civil Engineers. I may say that that procedure has never yet been used and we must hope that the procedure before the Traffic Commissioners will prove to be satisfactory to everybody.
I sympathise with the hon. Member and his constituents. I well understand the difficulties about rural transport, including the difficulties about taking home the shopping bag on Saturday evenings for those living in rural areas who depend on public transport services. There are many in the farming world who do so, and it is important that we should do everything we can to help them. I hope the hon. Member will accept my assurance that my right hon. Friend and I, and, indeed, our officers in the Department, look at the matter from both points of view, and we shall certainly make sure that fair consideration is given to it at all levels. I am certain that the Traffic Commissioners will give it fair consideration. I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising the subject tonight, and I hope that in due course the parishioners of Byram-cum-Sutton will be satisfied.

RAMPTON HOSPITAL

9.20 p.m.

Mr. Norman Dodds: My hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Mr. G. Jeger) has initiated a debate about a bus shelter. I want to refer to another shelter, a shelter which is not liked by those who live in it. Its name is Rampton Mental Hospital. Rampton has many important facets which require investigation, but I can deal with but two or three in this debate. The others will in due course receive my attention and that of the House, because I believe that there is something radically wrong at Rampton. Tonight, I want to show that because of inadequate parliamentary supervision, bureaucracy has gone mad with a flagrant disregard of the wishes and intentions of Parliament, causing unnecessary suffering to patients and relatives alike.
Rampton came into existence as a result of the passing of the Mental Deficiency Act, 1913, when a new provision was made for mental defectives as separate from the insane under the Lunacy Acts. After reading the 1913 and subsequent debates on mental defectives, including that associated with the introduction of Regulation 89 of the Mental Deficiency Regulations, 1948, I am appalled at the way officialdom has ignored and is still ignoring the rules of the game laid down by Parliament and also by the way that officials strive, by hook or by crook, to preserve what is in part an evil system.
The position is made that much more serious when the present Minister of Health indulges in making such criminally foolish remarks about the soothing effects of patients on their knees scrubbing stone floors for hours on end. For my evidence in respect of the betrayal of Parliament by officialdom, I commence with extracts from the speech of Mr. Reginald McKenna, the then Home Secretary speaking in the debates on the Mental Deficiency Act in 1913. He said:
The number of institutions to be set up under paragraph (e) will be extremely small. We do not propose to transfer all the defectives, as the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme seems to think, to these institutions, which will be specially for lunatics who are criminal or dangerous—I do not mean criminal

in the way of petty thefts or offences of that sort, but really dangerous and violent criminals.
I emphasise that latter statement. He went on:
We anticipate setting up not more than one or two of those institutions.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th July, 1913; Vol. LVI, c. 446.]
That was the tone set by the Home Secretary in 1913 and as a consequence of that Act, Rampton came into existence. There is another institution at Moss Side, but I will confine my remarks to Rampton about which I know something.
I believe that there are hundreds at Rampton whom Parliament never intended should go there, hundreds of non-criminal types who are neither violent nor dangerous, but who are there mainly because of repeatedly absconding from ordinary mental institutions. I appreciate that constant absconding can be a great nuisance and that something must be done to restrain activities in that form of enterprise, but I submit that there is no justification for sending such people to Rampton to live for many years with murderers and other violent or dangerous criminals.
I submit that the atmosphere is inevitably poisoned for the non-criminal types. Violence and brutality there must be—that is inevitable with some of the desperate types at Rampton. It must be obvious that all that is extremely harmful to obtaining the best curative treatment in a mental hospital. I am fortified in my submission because the staff at Rampton feels the same way about it. Here I quote from the News Chronicle of 8th October this year, which says:
Efforts are to be made to prevent murderers and other mentally defective criminals sharing the lives of non-criminal mental patients in State institutions.
The staff at Rampton, at its annual conference in October passed a resolution deploring this. I quote again:
A staff official said last night: 'We have evidence that it causes great distress to relatives, and we believe that it has a bad effect on non-criminal patients.'.
If that is what is felt by the staff, I feel that this matter should not be ignored. It substantiates up to the hilt one of the main planks in my campaign, namely, that at Rampton or any other State institution non-criminal types, as outlined by the Home Secretary in 1913, should not rub shoulders with criminals.


If they do, the efforts to obtain a cure for the non-criminal types will be made that much more difficult, because of the poisoned atmosphere.
I would ask those who doubt this to ask the relatives of non-criminal patients for their opinions about Rampton. It is called Rampton Hospital. To me it is a prison, and to anybody who says it is not I would say that a rose by any other name smells the same. If people do not think that it is a prison I should like to have it explained to me why its staff are members of the Prison Officers' Association.
One of the evils of this business is that once a mentally defective patient has been branded as a "Rampton Special" he bears a very heavy load for the rest of his life. To pass through Rampton's portals is to pass into another world. Every effort should be made to spare mental defectives this experience, no matter what their nuisance value, provided that they do not conform to the very bad types specified by Parliament. I have heard it said in official circles that even when some of them have improved in their conduct, and the question arises of their going to an ordinary mental hospital, many refusals are received from medical superintendents who do not want to take them because they are the Rampton type.
At this stage I want to introduce some official information, given in reply to a Question I raised with the previous Minister of Health in an effort to ascertain the number of non-criminal types at Ramp-ton. In his reply the Minister informed me that at that date the number of patients at Rampton was 1,074, and out of that number,
five hundred and fifty-six were not dealt with as mental defectives either by the courts or by the Secretary of State whilst being detained in prisons, approved schools or elsewhere."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd June, 1957; Vol. 571, c. 890.]
In other words, I submit, that they are not criminal types and should never have gone to Rampton.
The previous Minister of Health said that all the patients at Rampton have either violent or dangerous propensities. I want to challenge that statement. I thoroughly disagree that all those patients who are not criminals have either violent or dangerous propensities. I challenge the Minister or anyone else in that regard,

and I shall continue to do so until the matter is cleared up. A thoroughly independent body should investigate the reasons why each non-criminal patient has been sent to Rampton. I believe that if it did there would be a revelation which would shock the public out of its apathy on this subject. I prophesy that many will be found to be absconders from the ordinary mental hospitals. Is that to be wondered at when we consider what goes on under our mental laws?
By way of illustration I will quote from a Question and Answer which appears in the OFFICIAL REPORT a few days ago. I asked the Minister of Health:
…how many patients in mental institutions, at the latest convenient date, are held as certified mental defectives on the ground of being found neglected when they were at the time already in the care of the local authorities or of an approved charitable organisation…
The Answer was:
On 1st December, 1957, 4,455 mental defectives were detained in Mental Deficiency hospitals under the circumstances mentioned."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th December, 1957 Vol. 580, c. 6–7.]
They were neglected, yet they were in the care of local authorities or approved charitable organisations. What is the secret of this? For a long time now it has been the custom for some unfortunate children, particularly orphans and those whose fathers have run away and left the mother to look after three or four children, to be put into homes. When they reach the age of 15 or 16 they cannot be kept in the home, and something has to be done. One of the easiest ways is to certify them as mental defectives on the ground that they are neglected.
I heard of a case the other day of a man called Allgood who was discharged recently at the age of 57 after having been for nearly half a century in homes and mental institutions. I found on investigation that he was certified in 1932 He was taken to the county hall in custody, and there certified as being found neglected. For 11 years he hail been in a mental hospital at Dartford. After he was certified and until a few days ago he was a patient at the place where he had been found neglected. I know that lawyers can make some funny results occur from the use of the English


language, but to say that a person is found neglected when he is in a home and to certify him as neglected when he has been there for 11 years is taking matters a bit too far.
If my submission is correct, thousands of unfortunate young children have been taken away from homes and certified on the grounds that they are found neglected. Is it to be wondered at that many young men and women who seem to be facing a life sentence as cheap or slave labour decide to abscond? There are people who may object to the expression "cheap or slave labour", but what else is it if they receive only a few shillings a week? If they got the trade union rate for the job, a lot of them would be out of institutions pretty quickly. That was a proposal put to the Royal Commission by one expert, who said that absconding from such places could be a sign of intelligence and not of mental deficiency.
Those content to exist under conditions of that kind were probably rightly certified. But those with any "guts" at all would try to get out of it. If they do so, they find themselves on the road which leads to Rampton. The dice is heavily loaded against anyone who has been in a mental institution particularly when they try to get a job. Seldom do they escape capture for long. Conduct of this kind may land them in Rampton without their having been criminals or possessing violent or dangerous propensities.
From my investigations, I believe that there are many of that type at Rampton. In these cases, where it is claimed that they possess these propensities, certain inquiries ought to be made as to why they have them, bet there are no records to show that they possessed them before they went into a mental institution. An investigation which would show how they developed them would be exceedingly interesting, and many people now deprived of their liberty would be outside, where they ail want to be.
Having mentioned all this, I now ask what explanation or justification is there for children to be in the Rampton atmosphere? Even if they are in separate villas, the children are known to have expressed their pleasure at being next door to the "lifers". For this part of my case. I want to quote again from

HANSARD a Question and Answer on 2nd December, when I asked the Minister of Health what was the number of mental defective children at present detained in the Rampton Mental Hospital, and the reply was:
On 14th November, there were thirteen boys and three girls, of whom one boy was 5 years old on admission.
What a departure from 1913. I assumed that we had made some progress, but we have gone back a long way. The Minister then explained:
The admission in 1953 of the boy in question was quite exceptional because no vacancy existed for him at that time in a mental deficiency hospital, and he had become unmanageable in the convent where he then was."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd December, 1957: Vol. 579, c. 31 and 32.]
What an indictment of this great country that we have to send a child of five years of age into the atmosphere shared by murderers and other criminal types. If one can go, how many more can go? I would submit that the excuse that they live in different villas is no excuse at all. Take the villas 100 miles away, put them somewhere else; when they are in the grounds of Rampton, the children are provided with a poisoned atmosphere.
I have a great friend who has made a calculation about the cost of Rampton, and here I quote:
Treatment for a propensity seems to be a lengthy business. Twenty-five per cent. of the inmates of Rampton have been there longer than ten years, while probably a considerably larger proportion have been there for over five years.
He dealt with the number discharged and the costs at Rampton, and then he says this:
This works out at a cost of approximately £8,000 per cure. Since, moreover, they are only discharged, for the most part, to other homes, this means that only their propensities are cured and not their mental defect.
What a lot of money—£8,000 for each cure. I am satisfied that with the poisoned atmosphere of Rampton we are not getting proper value for our money.
I should now like to deal with some aspects of the treatment to which patients, criminal and non-criminal types alike, are subjected to in Rampton, and again I quote from HANSARD of 9th December. I asked the Minister of Health under what circumstances patients in Rampton Mental Hospital are required to scrub


stone floors, and, in his answer, the Minister said:
The maximum time a patient may be employed is the normal working period of about six hours, of which about four hours might be on actual scrubbing. Among the curative benefits of such work, and of all the occupational training, are the satisfaction of honest work, the instillation of the rudiments of hygiene, and the soothing effect on disturbed patients."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th December, 1957; Vol. 579, c, 884.]
The Minister does not seem to get away very easily with that because the News Chronicle, winding up some comments on it, said:
If we were not told that this was said by the Minister of Health in the year 1957, we might pardonably have assumed it to be a quotation from Dickens
Then I should like to quote from Time and Tide, the independent weekly, of Saturday, 14th December. Commenting on what was said from both sides of the House, it winds up by saying this:
He had to explain that floor scrubbing was actually designed by kindly authorities for the benefit of the patients. I daresay very similar arguments were advanced by his predecessors in defence of the treadmill and the galley slave. All equipment, they would have explained, including oars and whips, was supplied free. Benches were provided on the galleys. What could be more satisfying than sixth honest work or more soothing than its regular rhythm?
Even this Minister cannot see just what decent people think about his statement. Because of that attitude of mind on the part of the Minister it is vital that I should make a New Year resolution that in 1958 I will redouble my efforts to expose the evils of this system.
Finally, I would quote from a letter. I have had lots of letters from people who have experienced the scrubbing of the stone floors in Rampton. One of them is a boy, a very naughty boy he must have been. He has improved sufficiently to be discharged in the last four weeks. He puts in words very much better than many relatives and patients have been able to do what the scrubbing means. I would like to read extracts from his letter, which was written to the Minister:
As a patient released from the Rampton State Institution three weeks ago whose certification order has since been discharged, may I challenge your statement in the House of Commons earlier this week concerning the scrubbing of stone-floor by patients as being inaccurate, misleading and creating a totally false impression? I write with some authority. During my 11 years in Rampton, I spent 13 periods in the D.I. refractory ward where the

scrubbing takes place ranging from a few weeks to one period of two years.
If anybody goes to Rampton and talks about punishment, they hold up their hands in horror and say, "There is no punishment here." The letter goes on:
I last scrubbed floors last February. I have spoken to men who did so as recent as last October. When I left Rampton, conditions had not changed.
First your statement that no man spends more than four hours scrubbing the floor. This is not true. When a man enters D.I. usually for the first fortnight he does a whole day's scrubbing, a total of 8½ hours. He starts at 8.30 a.m. and finishes at 6 p.m. with two half-hour breaks for meals. For that entire period he scrubs a 7 yard patch of corridor. When he finishes it, often the nurse kicks the bucket over and he starts all over again. Only after this fortnight, when he is allowed exercise in the afternoons, does he do only four hours in the morning.
The scrubbing is continued for a fortnight, after which the man gets exercise in the yard outside. I continue the letter:
Second, you state that patients get a satisfaction of honest work. But it is stupid, senseless and degrading work. If a man sews mailbags, there is a constructive element present. Scrubbing a patch of stone floor so clean that you can eat a meal off it and scrubbed so shiny that it is dangerous to walk on is a form of punishment no man should be allowed to inflict on another and certainly not in a place for the mentally inflicted.
If I had more time I could read out more extracts to show what a shocking thing this is. To claim that this practice is soothing is one of the worst defences that any person could have made of it. This is done in a ward to which people are sent because they have done something wrong; it is punishment. I challenge the Minister on this matter. Even the hands and the knees of the patients are red raw. If this punishment is soothing we should look somewhere else for the people to run these places. Let us get back as quickly as possible to the mentality of the Parliamentarians of 1913 who said that an institution of this sort should be a place from which the non-criminal types should be excluded.
I have had some experience of the briefs given to Ministers. The Parliamentary Secretary has the last word and sometimes briefs have been very misleading. There will come another day on which to answer if in the brief tonight there is something which is not accurate.

9.46 p.m.

Mr. W. F. Deedes: I wish to say a word following the speech of the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Dodds) and I hope that he will not want to contradict what I say. I, too, have visited Rampton. Although, admittedly, my visit was shorter than his, my experience makes me feel that this ought to be added to what the hon. Member said. There are a large number of staff employed there, giving most selfless service to what, perhaps, is the most difficult of all tasks. No one who visits Rampton can fail to get an impression of what that service means to anyone there, particularly in some sections in which the worst cases are looked after.
I remember asking whether members of the staff were relieved from duty with the hardest cases at Rampton. The answer I got, which, I think, was a true one, was that those members of the staff were most reluctant to change their duties because they did not like leaving the people who, they felt, had become dependent upon them. I am sure that in the case he made the hon. Member would not wish to obscure the kind of work which the bulk of those people do, no matter what the regimen may be, or the quality of service they render. I hope be will forgive me, therefore, for interspersing those words.

Mr. Dodds: Does the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) appreciate that I have not been speaking about the staff, who go there willingly, but about the "poor devils" who go there against their will?

9.47 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Richard Thompson): The hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Dodds), who was fortunate in the Ballot, chose as his subject one which we know, from his assiduity at Question Time, is one to which he has devoted a great amount of time and study. Before the debate he was good enough to see me and, in the usual way, to let me know the principal points to which he proposed to relate his argument this evening. Although the hon. Member has ranged wide, he has dealt very largely with two points which I propose to cover in a little detail.
The first was the propriety of the scrubbing of which we have heard so much this evening—whether it has any value and whether it ought to find any place in the regimen—and, secondly, the question of the juxtaposition in Rampton institution of what one might loosely call criminals and non-criminals, those who have been convicted for an offence at some time and those who have not. If I can confine myself largely to those two points I think I shall be dealing fairly with the hon. Member and in the way in which he indicated to me would be appropriate.
I have visited this institution. I spent a long day there. I do not say, of course, that I know all the ins and outs of the matter; that would be quite unreasonable. On the other hand, when something is a matter of controversy it is helpful to have gone there and seen for oneself, because one cannot assume that the really devoted people who run the establishment—the doctors and nurses, of both sexes—have a great deal to conceal which they tuck out of the way when one visits.
Another point I want to make, because I think some people may be inclined to forget it, is that, by definition, Rampton is an institution for those of violent or dangerous propensities. I do not think that we can ever get away from that. We are dealing with very exceptional people with whom the ordinary mental deficiency hospitals cannot cope. Therefore, it would not be surprising if we found that their treatment was exceedingly difficult and probably prolonged.
First, let me say a word about the scrubbing. The hon. Gentleman spoke about treadmills, galley slaves and matters of that kind.

Mr. Dodds: Those were not my words, but the newspaper's words.

Mr. Thompson: Then let me say that the hon. Gentleman quoted, I think with approval, a reference in the Press in, those terms.
A great deal has been made of this and perhaps I could bring a little personal experience to bear on it, as I have done a great deal of floor scrubbing. For a year I was an ordinary seaman in the Navy, and I regarded it as part of the routine to scrub out my mess and my part of the ship every morning, with a number of


other people. The work was tedious, but not particularly arduous, and was regularly carried out in conditions of wind and rain—and occasional enemy action—far in excess of anything that patients at Rampton normally have to endure.
It is utter nonsense to talk about this work as a kind of brutalising performance. It is nothing of the kind. As I said, it is rather boring, but not particularly arduous work.

Mr. Dodds: Mr. Dodds rose—

Mr. Thompson: The hon. Gentleman has had a good innings.

Mr. Dodds: The Minister is not a mental defective. The patients are there to be cured.

Mr. Thompson: I am grateful for that tribute. As I say, the hon. Gentleman has had a good innings and must not mind if I have one, too.
Why is it necessary to have scrubbing at all? I must ask the hon. Gentleman to accept this from me. This occupation is essential for these unfortunate people with whom we are dealing, particularly for refractory patients. There is a limit to the types of useful work in which these disturbed patients can be employed.
For instance, these patients cannot be given tools which might be turned into offensive weapons. Many of the patients at Rampton work in workshops and perform useful work, but that involves their handling tools. For refractory patients, the people whom the hon. Gentleman had particularly in mind, there is a grave and unacceptable risk involved if they are put into workshops in their disturbed state of mind. They can do serious injury to themselves and to those who work with them.
For this reason, it is surely better that they should have some kind of simple occupation until they settle down and are capable of accepting more advanced kinds of work. It is surely better that they should do something like that than be isolated in strong rooms as used to be the case many years ago.
That is virtually the alternative: whether they shall be given simple work until they settle down and can be given something more imaginative, something more therapeutic perhaps, or whether they shall be treated in the old-fashioned way, which does them no good at all, and

be isolated and kept under restraint. That is why this scrubbing routine is resorted to, and if I may pray in aid my own modest experience scrubbing is not a degrading and disgusting thing. Moreover a patient is not employed on scrubbing work if he is medically unsuited for it.
The hon. Gentleman said that he believed that there were hundreds of people at Rampton who were not criminals. I think that that is a fair summary. Classification into "criminals," those who have been convicted, and "non-criminals," those who have not, is misleading in a hospital—and in spite of what the hon. Member said about Rampton being a prison, it is, in fact, a hospital, run by doctors and nurses.

Mr. Dodds: Members of the Prison Officers' Association.

Mr. Thompson: The hon. Member seems to think that it is a matter of great consequence that the nurses at Rampton are members of the Prison Officers' Association. There is a perfectly understandable historical reason for this, which I am sure he knows. In any case, I am sure that he would not suggest that the people who do this work should be compelled to join an association not of their own choosing just because it might have a more attractive nomenclature and because this is a particular kind of hospital.
Returning to the point about criminal and non-criminal patients, the "criminal" defectives represent roughly 50 per cent. of the whole. The hon. Member knows the sources of these patients. They comprise defectives transferred under Section 9 of the Mental Deficiency Act, 1913, by order of the Secretary of State from prisons, approved schools and kindred institutions, and defectives sent under Section 8 of the Mental Deficiency Act, 1913, direct by a court or transferred from other institutions to which they have been sent by the court.
"Non-criminal" defectives are defectives transferred from other institutions or admitted direct. A number of patients who have been admitted as non-criminal defectives may well have committed acts for which they would have been prosecuted, but the police did not prosecute because they knew these were ascertained mental defectives and, consequently, merely arranged for them to be returned to hospital.
The patients who have been charged and convicted as criminals are not necessarily the most difficult patients. To assume that the people who have been convicted of the worst crimes are the most dangerous and truculent type is quite wrong. To separate them according to the legal definition in a hospital would be misleading, because we might well find that somebody who had a shocking criminal record was a docile patient. The only criterion applicable to all classes of defectives admitted to Rampton must be whether they have dangerous or violent propensities.
In general, no distinction is made between those who have been convicted and others, except that those who have been charged with or convicted of murder are generally kept in the central ward longer than others, for understandable security reasons. Apart from this, all are treated as patients in a hospital and the classification is by mental condition and progress. In my opinion, that is exactly as it should be, because I reject absolutely the suggestion that Rampton is a prison and not a hospital.
A limited time remains to me, and perhaps I may conclude. The duty of doctors, administrators and the courts is to try to do what is right for the patients and the public, and the evidence on which they decide cannot always be set out so as to convince people who have not full experience of these matters. It is right that the public should take an interest in State institutions, and lay criticisms can be constructive and useful.
It is only reasonable that the layman should approach the problem of these most difficult patients with humility and a sense of responsibility, bearing in mind the harmful effect that uninformed criticism and ill-judged publicity can have on the patients themselves and on the feelings of their relatives.

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Brooman-White.]

Mr. Thompson: It is difficult if not impossible for those trained in this sphere to know just what should have been done at some past time. Justification

for past actions should not be questioned to a point where it imposes a heavy burden on those who have to deal with the patients and who have devoted their lives to the subject. In this connection, I greatly welcomed the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes). All of us in this House would wish to associate ourselves with what he said about the devotion of the staff and the intensely difficult task with which they are confronted.
The hon. Member for Erith and Crayford made a point that, on the question of the juxtaposition of what he called the criminal and the non-criminal types, he had the support of the Prison Officers' Association, according to a resolution which he quoted. That resolution was supposed to have been sent to my right hon. and learned Friend. When it was mentioned by the hon. Member in the course of a supplementary question some time ago, my right hon. and learned Friend stated, as was the case, that he had received no such resolution. I can only say that, knowing what this debate was to be about today and thinking that the hon. Member would probably raise the matter, I took particular care to inquire whether that resolution had since been remitted to my right hon. and learned Friend. We have still not received it.
I do not say that that is because there was not such a resolution, but I cannot help feeling that the association concerned may well feel that perhaps the hon. Member is not the best man to urge it in this House in view of his attitude towards Rampton and the people who work there.

Mr. Dodds: Does the hon. Gentleman doubt that the resolution was passed? Whether or not I am the right sort of man, if it has been passed by the association, will he not take any notice of it? If he wishes to know, I am meeting the staff at Rampton in January.

Mr. Thompson: I am aware of that. If the hon. Member looks at HANSARD tomorrow morning, he will see that I said words to the effect that I do not doubt that the resolution was passed.
On the question of convicted criminals and those who have not been convicted being in the same institution, I have already pointed out that this place is a


hospital it is run as a hospital, albeit with exceptionally difficult patients. That is not, therefore, a criticism of substance.
The hon. Member quoted at considerable length from a letter sent to my right hon. and learned Friend by a patient recently discharged from Rampton, making certain extremely damaging criticisms and statements, which ought not to be allowed to go unchallenged. I want to say straightaway that patients are kept under the very closest supervision, including the time when they are scrubbing out their quarters. This is because some inflict injuries on themselves to avoid work. Only fit men are put on scrubbing, and any with sore knees or hands are put on other work.

Mr. Dodds: How do they get the sore knees?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Thompson: The patient to whom the hon. Member has referred is now, I am glad to say, in the outside world and will, I hope, make a success and rehabilitate himself and become a useful member of society. In the past, however, he has made a habit of making complaints without foundation which he has subsequently retracted. His letter to the hon. Member is typical of allegations which he has made in the past and which, in the event, he has retracted.
My concluding word is this. We all want to see Rampton run as efficiently and as humanely as an establishment of this kind can possibly be run, but if the hon. Member or anybody else is to base his judgment concerning the running of this administration on statements made by present patients or, possibly, parents of patients who are themselves in a worried and distressed state of mind, if he discounts what the devoted doctors and nurses in this institution themselves say about it and if he discounts the evidence of Members of this House who have been there to see the place for themselves, all I can say is that the picture that will go out to the country, to the detriment of the patients in Rampton and of the devoted people looking after them, will be a very damaging and completely inaccurate one.

Mr. Dodds: If that is what the Minister feels about this, will he accept the challenge to have an independent

investigation, on the lines I have mentioned, to clear up this matter?

Mr. Thompson: I consider that no such investigation is required on these facts.

10.5 p.m.

Mr. Denis Howell: It was not my intention to intervene in this debate, but I too have a case which disturbs me.
A girl from my constituency finds herself in Rampton. I do not want to give her name, because I do not think it would be in her interests or in the interests of the Department to bandy about names. I think I am a reasonable man in many ways, but I ask the Minister to consider the effect of the sort of secrecy which surrounds people when they get to Rampton.
This girl was sent there. She had a history of running away. As a relatively sane person myself, I do not regard it, as apparently many medical authorities do, as a sign of insanity when a person to whom nothing abnormal has happened for many years, who has a reasonably good record and who suddenly finds herself in a mental institution, tries to abscond. To me that would seem the natural thing to do. I should certainly do it myself in those circumstances. However, it seems to be regarded at Rampton and other places as being the last word in irresponsibility and a reason why nothing much can be done.
I have tried to find out by writing to the medical superintendent and to the Board of Control exactly what is the matter with this girl. Correspondence has been continuing on and off for some months, and I have taken up the matter with the National Council of Civil Liberties, which seems to me to be doing good work; but it has not enough money to send medical specialists to undertake the independent medical examination which I wanted for this patient. I am still in the dark about this.
I say to the Minister that this is most wrong. I have visited many mental hospitals, especially in the Midlands, before I came here, when I was a city councillor and, in support of the view of the hon. Gentleman, I would say that I have found most of the people serving those institutions to be very devoted indeed. I


would not say a word against them. I have never been to Rampton and, therefore, I will not say a word against anyone at Rampton.
But it makes one extremely suspicious, in the case to which I have referred, when I find it impossible to get any information. It is impossible to find out why the girl is still being kept there, what treatment she has been having and what progress she is making. In view of this and that my hon. Friend has drawn this subject in the Ballot—

Mr. Speaker: There is a slight misunderstanding. The hon. Member did not draw it in the Ballot; I selected him for this subject.

Mr. Howell: I am very happy to be corrected, Mr. Speaker. I think it would be out of order for me to congratulate you on that selection, but I certainly regard it as a very happy event, for it has enabled me to listen to the debate and to express my own views.
I should like to have a few words in private about this case, and I know that the Minister will accommodate me. I must say that, unless I can obtain some more reasonable information than I have so far, I shall feel like going to Rampton, and I do not think it does Rampton or any other institution very much good if hundreds of Members of Parliament descend on the place. I do ask the Minister kindly to see to it that when we as Members of Parliament inquire of medical superintendents and the Board of Control about cases in which we are interested we are given, even if in confidence, the fullest possible information so that much of the suspicion which surrounds these institutions can be removed. That is the plea I make.
Members of Parliament do not take up these cases until they have thoroughly investigated what they have been told by the complaining parents and others. We are entitled, I think, to the fullest possible information, and when we suspect that we are not getting it we really begin to think that there is something radically wrong—perhaps more wrong than is apt to be the case. I hope that the Minister will try to bring more light to bear on these cases and ensure that better information is provided for Members and other complaining bodies.

10.12 p.m.

Dr. Donald Johnson: It was not my intention, when I came here, to intervene in this debate. I think it is well enough known that I share the views of the hon. Member for Erith and Cray-ford (Mr. Dodds), who initiated the debate. I regret to say that, able as he made his case, my hon. Friend who answered him did not convince me otherwise.
I intervene only to further the point made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. D. Howell) about secrecy. There is no question that the information we get—information is hardly the word—the communications we receive about patients in mental hospitals or mental deficiency hospitals are remarkably uninformative. We are made to feel as if we are nuisances, but I do not believe that we are always necessarily nuisances either in individual casts or upon more general matters.
I should like to add a slightly more cheerful note to this debate, if I may, by quoting a case of a constituent of mine, about which I have already spoken personally to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. This is the case of a girl, or young woman as she is now, whose parents came to me about a year ago with the story that is all too familiar in these cases, that over twenty years ago they had given permission for her to go into a mental defectives home, the local county one.
The parents had signed their consent not realising that it was an irreversible consent. She had remained there two or three years, disturbances had occurred, which, since they had occurred some twenty years ago, one is obviously unable to express any opinion about, and she had gone to Rampton. She was there for twelve years, and for a further five or six years circulated between Rampton and Moss Side. She had then gone to a more open institution up at Prudhoe-on-Tyne in Northumberland, where she had committed this awful sin of trying to abscond. The result is that she came back to Moss Side, where she was at the beginning of the year.
I am pleased to say that an attitude more liberal than usual was taken on my intervention in this case, and, by the


courtesy of the then Minister, my right hon. Friend's predecessor, and the medical superintendent at Moss Side, I was able to visit the institution, see the girl, and have a conversation with her. To cut a somewhat long story short, I am hoping that the representations which I was able to make to the medical superintendent after my conversation with her did smooth away certain difficulties and misunderstandings. At any rate, the result to date is a happy one. Within six months the girl behaved very much better, and this was for the simple reason that she felt that at last someone was on her side and intervening on her behalf, whereas for years she had been in a melancholic state because she thought that everyone was against her. Within six months she was able to be transferred

to our county institution, and since then she has been practically a model patient.
The medical superintendent took an entirely fresh view of her case—I am most grateful to him for it—and placed trust in her, and put her in an open position, which she appreciated. According to an Answer that I received earlier this week, it is hoped that the girl will soon be in a fit condition to be discharged.
I quote this case as an example of helpful intervention and to show that on occasions Members of Parliament can perhaps be of help in curing people, instead of being nuisances, as they are regarded by so many.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes past Ten o'clock.